Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Commander Rupert Arnold Brabner, D.S.O., D.S.C., R.N.V.R., Member for the Borough of Hythe, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERRUPTED APPRENTICESHIPS SCHEME

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour when the Interrupted Apprenticeships Scheme for men whose apprenticeships have been interrupted by war service will be brought into operation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Though originally I had not thought it possible to introduce this scheme until after the cessation of European hostilities, I have, after further consideration, decided that it can be brought

into operation forthwith so that men now being discharged from the Forces on medical or other grounds may have the advantage of the scheme without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Group Releases

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is able to say what groups, it is at present anticipated, will be demobilised when the war in Europe is over.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the very widespread interest in this matter, can my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to make a statement or, if not, can he give an assurance that it will be as soon as possible after the end of hostilities?

Mr. Bevin: The question of releasing the men and the actual position of the groups is one for the Service Departments.

Retail Traders

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is able to make any statement with regard to the release from the Forces under the proposals for demobilisation set out in the White Paper of individual retail traders who desire to resume their business.

Mr. Bevin: Such persons will be released from the Armed Forces on the basis of their age and length of service in the same way as other members of the Forces.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is proposed that any consideration shall be given to the business requirements of these traders when they apply for release?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Class A, that is release on age and length of service, must operate or you cause some injustice to another man.

Distributive and Allied Trades

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether in considering the several claims for priority in demobilisation he will fully protect the claims of the distributive and allied trades which have probably contributed more proportionately, to the fighting Services than any other section of the community.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The distributive and allied trades will have to rely for increasing their labour force on those released from the Forces in Class A and on men and women returning from other industries.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the distributive trades have contributed proportionately more to the Fighting Services than other sections of the community?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Davies: Yes, they have.

Mr. Speaker: That is an argument, not a question.

Mr. Bevin: The fact that there has been a heavy call up as compared with many reserved occupations means that they were called up very early on in the war, and those trades which were subject to the early call up will benefit most from the release according to age and length of service.

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT (PROSECUTION, BRIGHTON)

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of R. D. Moore, who claimed to be a conscientious objector and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment at Brighton on 27th January, 1945, for refusing medical examination; and whether it was by the instructions of his Ministry that the prosecutor at the hearing resisted the defendant's request to the justices to impose a sentence which would have enabled the defendant to have his case considered by the appellate tribunal under Section 5 of the National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the case of Mr. R. D. Morse, whose name has been misquoted as Moore. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Refuse Collection, Ilford

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by the local authority in Ilford and elsewhere in London in the collection of house refuse due

to the shortage of staff; and what measures it is proposed to take to ensure that the local authorities are able to obtain the necessary labour to carry out refuse collection at reasonable intervals.

Mr. Bevin: As my hon. Friend knows, I am fully aware of the position. In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health, Works and Home Security, steps are being taken to overcome the difficulties.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that in certain parts of London collections are taking place only once in a period of five weeks? In view of those circumstances will he give the House an assurance that steps will be taken to expedite this as far as possible?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, but it is not entirely in my hands. I can supply the labour but the difficulty has been that it is rather in water-tight compartments. I have met the local authorities and asked them, when they are short, to arrange with the other Departments to transfer men from, say, debris clearance, or some other work to help out with this work and they are getting on with that, I understand, very fast.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is it not the case that there have been many instances where transfers of that nature have not proved satisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend not take immediate steps to ensure that the necessary labour force is available for this vital work in those boroughs where it has not been possible to get men from other departments?

Mr. Bevin: I must say that labour is in short supply, and it is the obvious duty of local authorities and other authorities to combine together to use the labour to the fullest advantage and not keep men standing about because they happen to be under one control when they are needed by the other control.

National Health Service Proposals (Discussions)

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health (1) what purpose has been achieved by issuing the White Paper on the health services, in view of the fact that he has now, in response to representations from the B.M.A., proposed an alternative structure fundamentally different from that outlined in the White Paper;
(2) why the proposed Salaried Medical Service operated from health centres and offering a new advance in medical practice, has been dropped at the request of the B.M.A.;
(3) what is the purpose of the experimental health centres contemplated in the alternative proposals to those contained in the White Paper, in view of the fact that they will provide accommodation from which doctors can conduct private practice more conveniently but on the same terms and lines as those practising from their homes.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): With permission, I will answer Question 17 and the two following Questions together.

Dr. Summerskill: Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to give the Minister permission to answer these Questions together. They are entirely different, though they deal with the same matter, and I want the Minister's answers to be quite clear.

Mr. Willink: The three Questions are all concerned with a wide subject and perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until she has heard the answer and see whether it covers her three Questions adequately.

Dr. Summerskill: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that I may put three supplementaries?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must wait and see.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would answer these three Questions together, with permission. Why did he ask the permission of the House, when he had the answers prepared in a combined form?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is common form to do that; the only alternative would be for the Minister to read out the same answer three times running.

Mr. Willink: There seems to be much misunderstanding on this matter, and I welcome this opportunity of clearing it up. The proposals in the White Paper were for discussion before the Government decided on the terms of draft legislation. Discussion was invited with all the major professional and other organisations affected, and this discussion has been—and is still—taking place. In the course of it various possible modifications of the detailed proposals have been discussed by

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself with the several organisations; that is what the discussions were for. Soon my right hon. Friend and myself will consider with our colleagues some of these alternative methods of achieving the White Paper's objective, a comprehensive service of health for the nation. The Government will have then to decide whether these—or any of them—are desirable alternatives or not.
Before informing the Government of their views on these possible alternatives, the, various organisations — medical, dental, voluntary hospital, local authority —are considering, on reports from their representatives who took part in the talks, the matters which have been discussed. It is to some of those reports, no doubt, or to varying rumours about those reports, that recent references have been made.
When the views of the different organisations are available, the Government will decide upon the content of draft legislation for submission to the House, while discussion of much detail which may not need to be included in the Bill itself will go on. Until then the three stages of the procedure originally laid down—the White Paper, discussion of the White Paper and final preparation of draft legislation—are being adhered to, and the objects of this second stage have been those which were clearly set out in the introductory paragraphs of the White Paper.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that before a White Paper is published full discussions have already taken place between the people who are interested, and that so far as this question is concerned the British Medical Association, and other medical organisations, had already thrashed out every question of principle with the Ministry?[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister said that only details are being altered, but is it not a fact that in this report, which has been published, and which is in the hands of every doctor in the country, and many lay people, too, every fundamental principle laid down in the White Paper has been altered?

Mr. Willink: The hon. Lady is under a complete misapprehension with regard to the function of a White Paper. A White Paper in such a case as this represents the outcome of discussions, but it also


affords a new focus for discussion, particularly after the White Paper has been discussed in this House. The White Paper itself contemplated that there would be such discussions. The hon. Lady is under a further misapprehension, as I understand the facts, when she refers to the publication of this report. My information is that every copy of this report was marked "Not for Publication." She is under a third misapprehension when she refers to anything having been dropped. My answer makes it perfectly clear that the Government as a whole have not considered the outcome of these discussions.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is not the real reason for the Minister's change of mind the realisation that this Parliament has no mandate to enslave a free profession?

Mr. McNeil: Will the Minister tell us whether or not the Government had given any indication to the British Medical Association that the proposals which they are now discussing are acceptable to the Government as a basis for negotiation?

Mr. Willink: I have already said quite clearly that the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself have not discussed the outcome of these discussions with our colleagues.

Mr. Stephen: Does the Minister's statement mean that he himself is dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by his predecessor?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, but when it is stated expressly that a White Paper is published for discussion that statement is made sincerely on behalf of the Government, and invites free and confidential discussion with all those who will take part in the Service in question.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Has the Minister given any indication to the medical authorities that he himself will support these particular proposals, with his colleagues in the Government?

Mr. Willink: In the course of discussions of this kind I should certainly not express an attitude to any particular proposals, which might embarrass the Government's ultimate decision on them. Discussions such as this give rise to alternatives and modifications for consideration by the Government.

Mr. Petherick: Whether one approves the general system of issuing White Papers or not, is is not a perfectly proper and democratic method of operation, when a White Paper has been issued, to call into consultation all those who are likely to be affected; and would it not be quite absurd to issue a White Paper and then say that it cannot be amended in any form?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that statements have been made by members of the British Medical Association to the effect that their interpretation of their discussions with the Minister has led them to the conclusion that he has made certain concessions, or has agreed to put certain modifications before his colleagues in the Government? Is that correct?

Mr. Willink: I cannot take responsibility, for I have no knowledge of what statements have been made by the different members of this large Association.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of Order. As my hon. Friend has just given notice that she will raise this matter on the Adjournment, will that prevent a discussion on this subject between now and the date of that Adjournment Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so, but I do not know what discussion the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend gave notice that she would raise this matter again on the Adjournment and I would like to know whether that will prevent the matter coming up again in the ordinary course in other circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, no; this Adjournment would certainly not prevent previous discussion in the course of Business.

L.C.C. Hospitals (Medical Superintendents)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of medical superintendents employed in L.C.C. hospitals; and how many have served on the senior staffs of the London voluntary hospitals.

Mr. Willink: I am informed that 45 medical superintendents, three of them' in an acting capacity, are at present employed in L.C.C. hospitals, excluding mental hospitals. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not immediately available, but I will make inquiries and let my hon. Friend know the result.

Hospitals (Nursinģ Staffs)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health what is the approximate shortage of nurses in civil hospitals; the number now training for the profession; to what extent the deficiency is being reduced; and what further steps will be taken to increase nursing, medical and domestic staffs.

Mr. Willink: The total number of additional nursing staff of all grades estimated to be required on 1st November, 1944, at civilian hospitals (other than maternity hospitals and mental hospitals) was 12,355. On the same date the number of student nurses in training in these hospitals was 38,343. The overall shortage has not been reduced during the past year, the wastage having slightly exceeded the considerable intake. Every practicable step is being and will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, in consultation with me to induce suitable women to undertake nursing and to redistribute the available nurses to the best advantage. The highest priority is also given by my right hon. Friend to the filling of vacancies in hospitals for domestic staff.
Any general increase of medical staffs is not possible at present owing to the heavy demands on the limited number of doctors available, but where special need is shown the Central Medical War Committee is prepared to consider an increase of the approved establishment.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. are learned Gentleman appreciate that this matter is rather serious and deserves special attention? Will he give it extra consideration?

Mr. Willink: It would be difficult to give the subject more consideration than it is getting at present. It is considered a most serious matter.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will the Minister have inquiries made of industrial firms

now employing certified nurses on duties which might possibly be done by Red Cross trained women? Will he see if he can get some of these nurses back into the hospitals?

Mr. Willink: That is being taken into account and will continue to be taken into account.

ARMED FORCES CALL-UP (AGE LIMIT)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to reduce the upper age limit for call-up to the Forces.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. In general, as from 1st May, I do not propose to call up any. more men born in 1914 or earlier, except in so far as they may be required to meet the demands of the Forces for tradesmen or specialists, or for other special reasons.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Since my right hon. Friend is not proposing to call up any more men in this particular category, will he take steps to effect the release of the older men, and substitute for them the younger men?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question altogether.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could my right hon. Friend make a concession in regard to the women who are being conscripted at the present time?

Mr. Bevin: We have not called up any women for a considerable time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Land Acquisition

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health.what results attended the enquiry his inspector held in connection with the proposed acquisition of land by the Malton rural district council for sites for agricultural workers' cottages at Bulmer and Thornton-le-Clay; whether the sites have been since procured and, if so, at what price; and what was their rateable value.

Mr. Willink: After the public local inquiry in August, 1943, Malton rural district council purchased a site of about 1½ acres at Bulmer for £150, and a site of about a of an acre at Thornton-le-Clay for £40. In both cases the land was derated.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health whether he has approved the proposal of the Taunton Town Council to appropriate the Cheddon Road playing fields for housing purposes subject to the acquisition of other land for playing fields; and what area of land has been so acquired and at what price.

Mr. Willink: I can approve the appropriation of these playing fields only if the land proposed to be given in exchange is equally advantageous to the public. I have not yet received particulars of the exchange land.

War Damaged Dwellinģs (Statistics)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of dwelling-houses in the United Kingdom which have been so badly damaged as a result of enemy action since the beginning of the war that they are irreparable; and how many persons those dwellings are estimated to have housed.

Mr. Willink: The number of houses recorded as destroyed or damaged beyond repair is 203720. The number of persons who occupied these houses is estimated at approximately 800,000.

Buildinģ Associations

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health if there is in England or Wales any association for building houses similar to the Scottish Housing Association which receives the support of the Scottish Department of Health.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the very high appreciation that has been expressed of the Scottish Housing Association, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider forming some similar association now?

Mr. Willink: The functions of the Scottish Housing Association are, of course, somewhat special. They are now concentrating, I understand, on special types of houses of unconventional construction and we all know that the housing situation in Scotland when that Association was formed was, and still is, very difficult. At present I do not myself see any need for the formation of a general association covering the whole of England.

Local Authorities (Rents)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health if he will furnish the names of every local authority who have increased the rents of their houses since September, 1939, to date, stating the amount of weekly increase and what percentage of the rent, exclusive of rates, it represents; and for what purpose the increase was made.

Mr. Willink: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not possible for this information to be obtained from the local authorities?

Mr. Willink: No doubt it would be possible, but the local authorities do not give me this information by way of returns, and considering the present burden on them I cannot think of asking them for it.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister give us any indication of when we shall have the report of the Committee on Rent Restriction?

Mr. Willink: It is in the hands of the printers at this moment, and I hope it will be available within a week or a fortnight at the latest.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the refusal of the Minister to answer my question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LONDON (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the persons appointed to inquire into certain aspects of local government within the County of London foreshadowed in the recent White Paper on Local Government; and the terms of reference of this Committee.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Reading has agreed to act as Chairman of the Committee, and with permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members who have agreed to serve.
The terms of reference of the Committee will be as follow:
To examine and review the number, size and boundaries of the Metropolitan Boroughs and the distribution of functions between the London County Council on the one hand and the Common Council of the City of London and the Metropolitan Borough Councils on the other hand, and to make recommendations.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why we must always have Members of another place to act as chairmen of committees set up by the Government? Is there never an hon. Member who can preside over these deliberations?

Mr. Willink: The last chairman I announced was not a Member of another place.

Mr. Gallacher: Why is there never an ordinary workman chosen as chairman, and is there any ordinary workman on this Committee?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps I have a prejudice in favour of members of my own profession as making admirable chairmen.

Following are the names of the members:

The Marquess of Reading, M.C., K.C. (Chairman).
Mr. R. H. Adcock, C.B.E.
Sir E. R. Forber, K.C.B., C.B.E.
Alderman G. S. Lindgren, J.P.
Alderman Mrs. O. H. Paterson, O.B.E.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

National Parks (Report)

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is now able to state when the Report on National Parks, by Mr. John Dower, will be published.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I hope that the report referred to will be published during the early part of next month.

Ironstone Quarrying (Land Restoration)

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the Report made by Mr. A. H. S. Waters, V.C., on the scope and efficiency of the measures at present employed in the ironstone industry in Northampton-

shire and adjoining counties for the restoration of land damaged by quarrying operations will be published.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I expect to receive the report referred to at an early date. The report will be confidential and will not be published, but when I have had an opportunity to study it and to consult with my colleagues, I shall hope to make a statement in the matter.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is the Minister aware of the promise which he gave to the House on 24th June, 1943, that this matter was receiving very urgent attention and that he did not need any prodding from the House? Will he reinforce that by presenting this report at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Morrison: This gentleman is making a confidential report to me and I think the report will be franker and more useful if it is not trammelled by the necessity of framing it in such terms as publication would make desirable, I can, however, reinforce the assurance that I gave.

Mr. Brown: Surely, the House is entitled to receive a report dealing with a very urgent matter of this character.

Mr. Morrison: I hope to make a statement on the matter when I receive the report.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: Has not the report in fact been received by the Ministry already?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Advertising Displays (Control)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he is taking to control the erection of advertisements over the countryside.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Certain statutory powers exist now for the control of these advertisements. The Government are now considering whether further legislation for such control is needed and what forth the legislation should take.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already large boards are going up in country districts advertising coca-cola?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about that particular commodity being advertised,


but I hope soon to enter into talks and conversations with industry and local authorities on this very matter.

Power Station Site, Durham

Mr. Ritson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if, in view of the concern that is being expressed at the long delay of the report concerning the site of the power station at Keipur, Durham, and as the development committees in the area are becoming anxious with regard to the letting of future sites in the same vicinity, he will expedite the publication of the report.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) on 8th February, of which I am sending him a copy and to which I have, at present, nothing to add.

Mr. Ritson: What is holding this up?

Mr. Morrison: The public inquiry did disclose certain matters on which further information was necessary, and these inquiries have proceeded and have taken rather longer than was expected. I hope soon to be able to make an announcement on the matter.

EX-SERVICEMEN (DEAF AIDS)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Pensions whether any special mechanical device is recommended for ex-Servicemen who have sustained deafness as a result of their war service.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): No, Sir. In each case in which an appliance is recommended the man is provided with the type which the aural specialist considers most suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Cost of Livinģ (Official Pay)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the present high cost of living in India, he is satisfied that officials in the lower ranks of the Indian Civil Service, Imperial Police Service and Indian State Railways, are now receiving sufficient emoluments to meet a reasonable standard of living; if not, what action he is taking.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have recently sanctioned an increase in the dearness allowance to members of the Services mentioned as well as to the others under my control which, together with the Income Tax concession proposed in the recent Budget, will, I trust, meet the purposes that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I am continuing to have the position carefully watched.

Political Situation (Congress Leaders' Detention)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether recent proposals made by representative Indians to Lord Wavell and His Majesty's Government are being sympathetically considered; and whether, in view of the consensus of Indian opinion favouring the release of the Congress leaders, any decision has yet been reached on this matter.

Mr. Amery: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that on all sides now there are constant representations regarding the release of these prisoners, and as a prelude to any further advantageous development, will not he announce at an early date that instead of letting the prisoners free by instalments, they shall all be free?

Mr. Amery: I fully appreciate the position.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we be assured that some action will be taken in the very near future?

Mr. Amery: All matters are taken into constant consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only in India but in progressive circles in this country there is very strong feeling against the continued imprisonment of Congress leaders, and will he not consider releasing them all right away?

Mr. Amery: I am aware of the views held in many quarters.

Mr. Silverman: What is the purpose now of these long-continued detentions at a time when the Home Secretary has released in this country a lot of people whom he held under the same powers?

Mr. Amery: The matter is one for the Government of India and the different Provinces concerned, by whom most of the detainees are kept, and who must judge from the point of view of security in their Provinces or in India.

British Personnel, Indian Army

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements have been made whereby Britishers serving with the Gurkhas will have the right to vote by proxy at the General Election.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir; the original omission to provide for British personnel of the Indian Army was corrected in the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and British officers of the Gurkha units of the Indian Army are in the same position in this respect as officers of other units of the Indian Army.

Dr. Little: In view of the fact that these amended arrangements only came into force after the proxy papers had been lodged here, will my right hon. Friend extend the date, which was 9th February, for lodging the proxy voting papers, as there are very strong feelings on the matter?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid it would not be possible to extend the date of the actual registration when the register has been completed, but if a subsequent register is made, any later applications can come into it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the term "Gurkhas" a synonym for Ulster men?

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the number of British officers who were compulsorily commissioned in the Indian Army; how this arose; and when they will be allowed, at their option, to transfer to the British Service.

Mr. Amery: At a time when the need for officers for the Indian Army was acute, some 3,000 British other ranks were commissioned into the Indian Army after completing officer training without being specifically asked whether they volunteered to do so or given the option of being commissioned in the British Service. It is only to this extent that compulsory commissioning can be said to have occurred. The conditions on which these officers will be permitted, if they so desire, to transfer to the British Service have been laid down

by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and accepted by the Government of India. I will circulate these with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Government of India will shortly issue orders accordingly.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will these arrangements enable these men to be repatriated to this country in the same conditions as those serving in the British Army?

Mr. Amery: Subject to operational conditions they will have the same eligibility.

Following is the statement of conditions of service:

(a) Officers on transfer will be liable to continue to serve with Indian Army units for as long as required: or to serve elsewhere as ordered;
(b) they, will have to accept rates of pay appropriate to British Service officers wherever they are ordered to serve, but if attached to the Indian Army will continue to receive Indian Army rates;
(c) they will become subject to the British Service War Time Promotion Code as modified to meet Indian conditions;
(d) they will have to transfer in their substantive or war substantive rank, retaining existing seniority provided that they have qualified by service, etc., for their rank as laid down for promotion under British Service rules;
(e) retention of acting or temporary rank will depend upon the appointment to which they are posted on transfer;
(f) Infantry officers will be given a choice of three regiments into which they may be transferred, but no guarantee can be given that they will be transferred to the regiment of their choice;
(g) technical qualifications of those who wish to transfer to technical corps will be subject to verification before they can be accepted;
(h) they understand that their entitlement to despatch to United Kingdom under the PYTHON Scheme must depend on operational requirements and the ability to find replacements from other theatres of war.

North-West Frontier Provincial Government

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now give particulars respecting ministerial changes


in the North-West Frontier Provincial Government, the present Party representation in the Legislature; and how many representatives are now prevented by detention from taking their seats.

Mr. Amery: The Moslem League Ministry which took office in the North-West Frontier Province in May, 1943, recently resigned after a non-confidence motion had been carried against it. It has been replaced by a Congress Ministry under Dr. Khan Sahib, who was Premier when the Congress ministries resigned in 1939. The new Ministry has released the four Congress members of the Legislature, who had previously been detained. I cannot give precise up-to-date figures, but approximately the Congress Party has 21 representatives and the Moslem League 13 in a House of 50 members. There are, in addition, a number of small independent groups.

Mr. Sorensen: Why were these four released? Was it for any strategic reason?

Mr. Amery: I cannot say. The matter has always been in the discretion of the Provincial Government.

U.S.A. FORCES. UNITED KINGDOM (AFFILIATION ORDER APPLICATIONS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the number of cases involved, he will make a statement as to how British unmarried women may lay claims against men serving in the American forces in this country in respect of their illegitimate children.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The position is that the mother of an illegitimate child can apply to a court for an affiliation order against an American soldier, in the same way as she can against a British soldier, and the American authorities co-operate fully in arranging the service of summonses on members of their forces in this country and in enforcing any affiliation orders made against them. The necessary procedure in cases in which proceedings are taken has been fully explained to Clerks to Justices in a Home Office circular, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does the same procedure apply if the American soldier is moved overseas?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is so. The American authorities will pursue the case.

Mr. Taylor: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give publicity to this, because there is very great misunderstanding on the point?

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman send each Member of the House a copy?

Mr. Buchanan: I agree with the reasonableness of my right hon. Friend's answer but might I ask him to consult with the Scottish Secretary of State, because the law does not seem to apply in that way in Scotland? Will he see if he can make some arrangement that it should apply?

Mr. Morrison: I shall be glad to confer with my right hon. Friend on the point. I will put a copy or copies in the Library. If any one wishes to have a copy I shall be glad to supply it if he will communicate with me.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the American authorities to see that any orders that are made will be operative when the men return home, because at present that is not so?

Mr. Morrison: That is a point of legal doubt to which we are giving attention.

DARTMOOR PRISON (CONDITIONS)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the sanitary, washing, cooking and other arrangements at Dartmoor Prison are in accordance with the standards recommended by the Oliver Committee; and if it will be possible to organise for military prisoners there the educational facilities also recommended in the Committee's Report.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Oliver Committee was concerned only with military prisons and detention barracks. Dartmoor is a civil prison which will be used for men sentenced to penal servitude by courts-martial for military offences. I am advised however, that the sanitary and cooking arrangements at Dartmoor are at least as


good as those of the most nearly comparable military prison. The question of making special arrangements to provide the military prisoners at Dartmoor with military and general education is at present being discussed by the Prison Commissioners with the War Office. Meanwhile these men will share the educational facilities already available, which include evening classes and an excellent library.

Mr. Driberģ: Is it not the inaccessibility of Dartmoor which makes it difficult to arrange lectures by visiting speakers?

Mr. Morrison: I imagine that that may be so, though we will do our best. On the other hand, it gives the men more opportunities of open-air life than they had before.

Mr. Benson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sanitary arrangements at Dartmoor are very much below those of the ordinary "glass house"?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know.

ELECTORAL LAW REFORM (REPORT)

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action it is proposed to take with reference to the Interim Report of the Committee on Electoral Law Reform, Cmd. 6606.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Committee on Electoral Law Reform and any of the proposals for reducing the cost of elections put forward by the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. H. Morrison: These matters are under consideration. I am not at the moment able to make any statement with regard to them.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless we have legislation, there is a danger of the coming election being fought on the old system, which may make it difficult for men without the backing of big funds to stand for Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: I am giving the matter consideration and, if possible, legislation

will be passed before the election; but I am not an authority on that matter particularly.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving consideration to the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference for the extension of the university franchise to all graduates? It is extremely important that legislation should be passed before the General Election.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member may be sure that any recommendation of the Speaker's Conference will receive the most serious consideration of the Government.

FOREIGN TRAVEL PERMITS

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if permits to visit foreign countries, now under Allied control, can be issued to British citizens who desire to visit them for business purposes; and will permits be granted also to Members of Parliament.

Mr. H. Morrison: Exit permits for travel to France and Belgium, outside Army areas, can be granted to business men and others whose journeys are sponsored by the appropriate Government Department. As regards the facilities for travel provided for hon. Members, I would refer to the statement made on my behalf on 23rd January and suggest that my hon. Friend should apply to Mr. Speaker's Office if he desires to travel to France.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, owing to the decided improvement in the war situation, he will make arrangements whereby the granting of exit permits between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be extended to include a wider circle than at present; and that restrictions on travel will be gradually removed as opportunity for so doing arises.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I have previously informed my hon. Friend, it is the Government's intention to reduce the restrictions upon travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to a minimum as soon as circumstances permit. Certain minor relaxations have recently been


made, but I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of a substantial change in the present system until after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.

Dr. Little: Is the statement bearing on an extension of the present facilities, which appeared in an Irish newspaper this week, and with which the right hon. Gentleman has been furnished, in accordance with fact; and will he take the earliest opportunity of removing many of these restrictions which have become unbearable to thousands of our people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Morrison: We have not announced details in connection with these facilities; there were objections, which may pass in due time. I do not think it would be right for me to say whether the newspaper report was accurate or not. The facilities are very well known.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (REFORM)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he has now considered the views expressed in the Debate on the Adjournment on 26th May, 1944; and what steps he is taking to secure that the parliamentary machinery may be best adapted to meet our post-war needs and function with speed and efficiency, while preserving the rights of private Members and safeguarding our democratic rights.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The Government have considered this matter and have reached the conclusion that the question of adapting Parliamentary machinery to meet post-war needs, ought to be reserved for consideration by the Parliament to which post-war tasks will fall.

Mr. Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision? Does he remember giving evidence before the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman and, if so, in view of the fact that the problems will be greater and of a more urgent character, should not the combined experience of the House be brought to bear in order to give attention to the problems raised in the Question?

The Prime Minister: I think, having regard to the general position of our affairs, it would be much more appro-

priate for the new Parliament to take these matters into consideration. The hon. Member need not take too gloomy a view of it.

Earl Winterton: As the originator of the Debate to which reference is made in the Question, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he did not very distinctly state that this would require the attention of the Government? Would it be possible to create a Cabinet Committee on the subject, especially in view of the fact that the political issues involved are so slight that it might be possible to discuss them on any platform without open war between Members of the Government?

The Prime Minister: The attention of the Government was given to the subject and the result of that attention was to reach the point which has enabled me to make the present answer.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, will the Government consider withdrawing the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, as this is a Measure dealing with Parliamentary procedure especially affecting the legislative machinery of this House, and, further, were the appropriate Committees of the House, particularly the Selection Committee, consulted, before this Bill was introduced?

The Prime Minister: I endeavour to take a deeper and a comprehensive view of our affairs as far as possible. I must express my great regret that I could not attempt to answer such a question without notice.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the hon. Member who put the Question is not taking a gloomy view of the future?

Mr. Stephen: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the cartoon in to-day's "Evening Standard"?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the House that it belongs to the realm of caricature rather than of factual reproduction.

GERMANY (MILITARY SURRENDER)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter recently addressed by General


Eisenhower to President Roosevelt to the effect that it is probable that there will never be a clean cut military surrender of the German forces on the Western front and that V-day will come about only by proclamation rather than by any definite and decisive collapse or surrender of German resistance; and has he any statement to make on this new situation.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir," and to the second part, "No, Sir."

Mr. Davies: Does not the Prime Minister agree that General Eisenhower made it clear in his letter that the policy of unconditional surrender is found to be completely unworkable? May I ask further that if the Allies are considering issuing a Proclamation to end the war in Europe, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that during the Boer War a Proclamation to end that war was made, and then the war actually began in earnest and lasted for nearly two years afterwards?

The Prime Minister: The policy of unconditional surrender does not exclude unconditional surrender piecemeal. It does not necessarily apply wholesale. As to the references to the South African War, I think that my hon. Friend is not very accurate in his history, but I have forgotten the point on which he diverged.

Mr. Davies: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself play a somewhat gallant and noble part in the South African War?

The Prime Minister: I have never heard it put that way before.

ORDNANCE SURVEY (REQUISITIONED HOUSE, BOURNEMOUTH)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture the nature of the experimental work being carried out by the Ordnance Survey workers occupying a 12-roomed house in Christchurch Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth; whether he has considered the inconvenience of causing such work to be carried out at a pleasure resort; and how many of the staff are of military age.

The Minister of Aģriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As I explained to my hon. Friend in my reply of 15th March, the object of this work is to test various methods in connection with the re-survey of built-up areas and the means of keeping that survey up to date. I have no evidence that residents or visitors to Bournemouth are inconvenienced by this work. Of the 63 members of the staff employed, 43 are between the ages of 18 and 35; and of these 15 have been discharged from the Army, 26 declared unfit for military service, one is a conscientious objector and one a citizen of Eire.

Sir L. Lyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the town clerk of Bournemouth has a list of 1,200 people wanting houses and in a desperate position, and that the people in the country take a very poor view of Ministries taking over big houses and using them for non-essential purposes?

Mr. Hudson: The execution of the work on which these people are engaged, namely, re-survey, is absolutely essential if the Government's post-war housing policy is to be carried out quickly and with efficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Finance

Mr. Kendall: asked the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the plans of the Government for agricultural finance, whether he is satisfied that treatment as favourable as that which other industries will be able to obtain from the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation will be available for the agricultural community.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

County War Executive Committees (Cost)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of the expenditure of the War Agricultural Executive Committees and also the cost to the taxpayer since they were inaugurated.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Civil Appropriation Accounts (Unclassified Votes for 1940 and Class X for subsequent years). Total payments and receipts from the inception of the Committees to 31st March last, in-


cluding approximate figures for the financial year ended on that date, were £55,600,000 and £30,400,000 respectively. These figures exclude sums due to or by the Committees at 31st March, 1945, also tenant right and live and dead stock on hand at that date, together with betterment claims in connection with lands in possession. In addition, there has been expenditure of some £9,000,000 in connection with the purchase of machinery supplied to Committees for contract work for farmers and for use on lands in possession.

Milk Marketing Offences (Penalties)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture by what authority the Milk Marketing Board have imposed penalties on registered producers of milk, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Hudson: The Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, as approved by Parliament and the Milk Marketing Board (Modification of Functions) Order, 1942.

Sin W. Smithers: Is not this another case of penalties being imposed by a body not properly constituted, from which there is no appeal to a court of justice?

Mr. Hudson: That question was examined by a committee in 1939, which reported in favour of the practice.

Machinery (British Manufacturers)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the early cessation of supplies of agricultural machinery under Lend-Lease from America and the difficulties of ordinary purchase, owing to the dollar exchange, of American agricultural machinery, what encouragement is being given to British manufacturers for an increased production of ploughs, tractors, harvesters and seed drills.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) on 29th March.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply did not go nearly far enough, that the matter is very pressing, and that, unless further machinery is available, we shall not get the food we so urgently require?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer I gave.

Mr. De la Bère: I already know the answer.

Weather Reports

Mr. De la èbere: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in addition to the frost warnings which are now being broadcast for the benefit of farmers from April to mid-June, he will confer with the appropriate Department with a view to a full and comprehensive weather report being also available.

Mr. Hudson: I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air in this matter, and I understand that full weather reports will he made available as soon as possible.

Mr. De la Bère: What does "as soon as possible" mean? Surely we can have full weather reports now, and do something for the farmers?

Ex-Servicemen (Traininģ)

Mr. Chater: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the scheme for training ex-Servicemen in practical work on the land is now complete; and can the details now be made available to men interested.

Mr. Hudson: Details of the arrangements for training disabled ex-Service and other men for employment on the land will be available to all interested persons at local offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service early next week, and my Department has just issued an announcement on the matter, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. These arrangements are, in effect, the first instalment of the scheme for ex-Service persons generally, about which further information will be issued very shortly.

Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send copies to other Members?

Mr. Hudson: I will put a copy in the Library.

Workers' Camps (Creches)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will recommend the war agricultural executive committees to set up camps with creches, so that parents with children can undertake voluntary work on the land.

Mr. Hudson: In view of the limited supplies of equipment available, the difficulties in providing the necessary additional staff, and the need for reserving accommodation at the camps for active volunteers, I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are many parents in the cities who would be glad of an opportunity to help in agriculture if there were facilities for the children, and would not that be better than taking children from school to do agricultural work?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries before setting up creches in the country in order to find what has been the cost of setting them up in the towns?

RIVER BOARDS BILL

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Heneaģe: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the River Boards Bill is likely to be introduced.

Mr. Hudson: It is hoped to introduce a Bill during the present Session.

WOMAN STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE, LONDON (APPOINTMENT)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he departed from precedent in appointing a woman to be a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.

Mr. H. Morrison: Appointments as Metropolitan Police Court Magistrates are made by His Majesty on the recommendaiton of the Home Secretary, and it would be contrary to precedent to detail the reasons for any advice tendered to His Majesty. I can however say that I was, and am, satisfied that Miss Campbell possesses qualities which will make her a valuable addition to the Metropolitan Bench.

Mrs. Tate: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise how very distressing any departure from the obsolete past must always be to the hon. Member who asks the Question?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Home Secretary aware that that applies generally to the other side?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in view of the source of this Question, that he may be reassured that he has done the right thing?

Mr. Morrison: I will try to draw corn-fort from what my hon. Friend says.

BLACK-OUT RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the black-out regulations will be deemed automatically to have been annulled, in those district in which they are still in force, when the end of the war in Europe is announced officially.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is my intention to remove the black-out restrictions in all districts at a date not later than the end of the war in Europe.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Home Secretary authorise the removal of baffle walls before the war ends?

Mr. Buchanan: In some of the great cities these things are terribly dangerous, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking local authorities to remove them?

Mr. Morrison: That is another subject, and questions covering it should be put down.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (COMMUNICATIONS)

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is being made for communication between residents in the Channel Islands and their relatives in this country to supersede the message service instituted through the Red Cross.

Mr. H. Morrison: When the Channel Islands were cut off from France last summer, the Red Cross postal message service was interrupted, but since the relief ship "Vega" began her voyages to the Islands in December last, His Majesty's Government have been making every effort to revive this service through the Red Cross. The German Government as the occupying Power have, however, stipulated that messages both to and from the Islands must be censored by them,


and insist that censorship must be carried out not in the Islands, as we had hoped, but in Germany. Messages have accordingly to be transmitted via Geneva for censorship in Germany. I understand that the messages from this country so far sent to Geneva for such censorship have not vet reached the Islands.

BLACK MARKET ALLEGATIONS (POLICE INQUIRIES, LEEDS)

Mr. Charleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any statement as to the results of the inquiries made by detective-officers from New Scotland Yard into allegations of black-marketing in Leeds.

Mr. H. Morrison: In consequence of detailed allegations published in the Press to the effect that Leeds was a centre of large-scale black market activities, I made arrangements, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Fuel and Power, and with the agreement of the Chief Constable of Leeds, for detective-officers from the Metropolitan Police Force to make a thorough investigation into these allegations on the spot. The careful inquiries which have been made leave my right hon. Friends and myself in no doubt that the allegations were much exaggerated, and in most instances quite unfounded, and that, while Leeds is no more immune than any other large city from black market activities, there is no reason to think that it is, as was suggested, the headquarters of openly practised black market activities.

Mr. Charleton: May I thank the Minister for his reply, which I believe will give general satisfaction in Leeds?

An Hon. Member: No, it will not.

DOG RACING (VETERINARY INSPECTORS)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider appointing Government veterinary surgeons to take charge on dog racing tracks in Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: Control is exercised over the provision of betting facilities at dog-racing tracks, but His Majesty's Gov-

ernment are not prepared to accept any responsibility for exercising control over the conduct of dog-racing itself, and accordingly are unable to accept the suggestion that Government inspectors should be appointed to take charge on dog-racing tracks.

Mr. Brown: Would the Home Secretary be good enough to consider evidence which I shall be happy to submit to him, and which suggests that it is just as necessary that these veterinary surgeons should be appointed by the Government and be responsible to them as it is in the case of the factory inspectors who are appointed by his Department at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will do that, I will, of course, give the matter my fullest consideration, but he might short-circuit the process by sending his information directly to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Unless good cause is shown, one does not want to add at the present time to the number of Government inspectors.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the Home Secretary assure me that the dogs will be allowed the same freedom as human beings, namely, free choice of vet.?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER

St. Albans (Objections)

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will extend the time available for objections to be made to the new register of electors in the St. Albans Division.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Electoral Registration Regulations which were approved by Parliament last month provide that nine days shall be available for the making of claims and objections. This period has elapsed in the case of the electors lists for the St. Albans Division, which were published on 31st March, and I have no power to extend the period.

Mr. Grimston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these lists were available only two days before the expiration of the time?

Mr. Morrison: I am advised that they were published on 31st March. If my hon. Friend has convincing information to


the contrary I will, of course, be glad to consider it, if he will let me have it.

Mr. Grimston: I will do so.

Missinģ Soldiers (Voting Proxies)

Commander Kinģ-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to clarify the position in the case of an elector holding a proxy on behalf of a serving soldier known to be missing.

Mr. H. Morrison: The fact that a Service voter is officially reported to be "missing" does not prevent his proxy from voting on his behalf. It is only when the death of a Service voter is notified that the proxy paper becomes invalid.

War Damaģe Repair Workers

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the letter sent to him by the Welfare and Entertainment Committee of the Ivanhoe Hostel, regarding facilities for voting at the next election by provincial building trade workers engaged on war damage repairs in London; and what answer he has made thereto.

Mr. H. Morrison: The matter is receiving consideration but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister see that everything is done to provide the utmost facilities for these workers to vote, as these are all good voters?

Mr. Morrison: I must not betray any understanding of what "good voter" means, but it is a point of substance and if I can do anything about it I will. We are working under exceedingly difficult conditions regarding electoral registration. However, we are looking into the matter, and if I can do anything I shall be glad.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

R.A.F. Education Officers

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Education whether he has considered a letter signed by 38 education officers in the R.A.F. with reference to conditions arising in connection with their demobilisation and matters connected therewith; and what steps he is taking to have their difficulties dealt with.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has sent a copy of the letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, as any questions arising out of these officers' employment by the Air Ministry are for his consideration.

Direct Grants

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Education what is the significance of the words "where a special case can be established," in paragraph 2, of circular 32, dated i6th March, 1945; and whether these words are intended to imply that schools which are not now in receipt of direct grant will need to make a stronger case for inclusion in the revised direct-grant list than existing direct-grant schools.

Mr. Ede: The governors of the schools in question elected in 1926 to cease to receive direct grant from the Board of Education and to receive such financial assistance as they might need from the local education authority. In the case of many of them, the greater part of the net cost of maintenance has fallen on the authority, and in respect of some of them the authority have incurred substantial capital expenditure. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the governors should establish a special case if they desire that their schools should revert to direct grant status.

Sir J. Mellor: When many of these schools elected to receive grant from the local education authorities, were they not assured that their position would not be prejudiced by that election?

Mr. Ede: That matter was raised several times by my hon. Friend during the discussion of the Education Bill last year, and my right hon. Friend never agreed that he was right.

EVACUATED LONDONERS (GOVERNMENT ADVICE)

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any advice to give to the evacuees from Greater London who are now living in safer parts of the country and who are looking forward to returning home.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My earnest and urgent advice is that all the half million Londoners who are now accommodated in the reception areas under the Government Evacuation Scheme should stay where they are for the present. As soon as the time is ripe, they will be told of the Government's organised arrangements for their return in comfort and with all due speed. In view of the great number of bomb-damaged houses in the London area which have still to be made habitable, these arrangements will provide that evacuees who have no proper home to go back to should remain in the reception areas until they can be rehoused. I am confident that the kindly hosts and hostesses of the reception areas will willingly continue, even after V-E-Day, to give hospitality to homeless mothers and children, aged, and infirm from our invincible London.

Mr. Ballenģer: In view of that statement, can the Prime Minister say that until the Government do give the evacuees notice that they can return to London, the Government will continue the billeting allowances which are now being issued in respect of those evacuees?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. I think it follows that if they cannot come home, they have got to be billeted. I speak subject to the various statements which have previously been made on the subject from this Box and by which my supplementary answers must necessarily be governed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that statements are being made in some parts of the provinces that billeting allowances have been withdrawn? That may not be so, but the statement is made.

The Prime Minister: They are withdrawn when the moment to go home is reached.

Mr. Shinwell: The statement is being made that in parts of the country billeting allowances are withdrawn.

The Prime Minister: I was making this statement by general request in order to discourage anything like a rush back to London, and for the House to give its solemn warning against it and discourage it. If technical matters are raised, I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to deal with them.

Mr. Thorne: When the time arrives, will some of the officials responsible make inquiries of the local authorities as to the number of evacuees who can came back because there is housing accommodation for them?

Mr. Willink: A circular was issued with regard to this matter at the end of last week.

Mr. Pritt: Would the Prime Minister consider, or ask the Minister of Health to consider, the possibility that people coming back from evacuation, when the time comes for them to come back, should have some kind of priority with regard to housing accommodation, rather like people who have been bombed cut?

Mr. Willink: That question was dealt with in the circular to which I referred.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: May I ask the Prime Minister whether "V-E-Day" is basic English for "Victory in Europe"?

The Prime Minister: It is a term that has crept in, without careful consideration of its exact origin, and also without any precise or accurate definition of what it will imply, or when it will come.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday, 17th April—Supply (4th Allotted Day): Committee, Debate on the San Francisco Conference.
Wednesday, 18th April—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill.
Thursday, 19th April—Supply (5th Allotted Day): Committee. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement on Russo-Polish relations and on the war situation generally. Afterwards there will be an opportunity for a Debate.
Friday, 20th April—Motions to approve the continuance in force of Proclamations made under the Government of India Act; and Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask a question on Business, arising out of an earlier Question? As it appears that, as a result of negotiations between my right hon. Friend and the organisations of medical men and women there has been some departure from the White Paper, will the Government arrange for a White Paper to be issued showing what departures, if any, have been made from the White Paper which was discussed and approved by the House, because this document published by the British Medical Association is not available to Members of this House? Would he also make arrangements for a free and open discussion on this matter before the B.M.A. Conference at the beginning of May?

Mr. McEntee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a paper, which is marked, "Not for publication," and which is not made available to this House, has in fact been sent out by the B.M.A.?

Mr. Eden: I cannot answer the last question. It is not within my jurisdiction. As regards my right hon. Friend's question, certain conversations have been taking place, following the Debate we had here on the White Paper. No conclusions whatever have been reached as a result of those conversations. If conclusions are reached, obviously they will have to be considered by the Cabinet and, after that, a report made to the House. At this stage they are purely exploratory conversations. My right hon. Friend assures me that no decisions of any kind have been taken, and obviously none could have been, because Members of the Cabinet are entirely unaware of the conversations.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure my right hon. Friend is as anxious as I am to see that the House is treated with proper dignity and consideration in these matters. There were discussions with other bodies before the White Paper was issued. Long discussions have subsequently ensued. I understand that the B.M.A. has circulated these conclusions to every person holding medical qualifications in this country. Conclusions—tentative conclusions, if you like—have leaked out all over the country, in every hospital. I am submitting it is somewhat unfair that this House should conclude a Debate on the broad assumption that we had in fact agreed in principle to the White Paper—[Interruption]—I am making my submission to

the Leader of the House. While, of course, I accept his word that no conclusions have been reached by His Majesty's Government, I should still have thought that the issue of a White Paper, indicating where the proposals differ from the White Paper, should be issued to Members of the House, and before conclusions are reached the House ought to have an opportunity of re-discussing the matter.

Mr. Eden: I think my right hon. Friend and the House will understand there is not the slightest desire to be discourteous to the House in this matter, nor do I think any abnormal procedure is being followed. It is, at least, obvious that since Members of the Government have not yet themselves received any conclusions from their colleagues, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health says that no final conclusions have yet been reached—it must be remembered that these conversations have not only been going on merely with the B.M.A., but with local authorities as well—the first stage is that the Government themselves must be made aware of what the situation is, and we must come to our decision. When we have come to a decision, we will consider how most fairly to present our conclusions to the House, so that the House may have a full and fair opportunity to express itself.

Mr. Tinker: Has the Leader of the House considered the promise he gave that he would grant a day for a discussion on war gratuities? He gave a promise some time ago, but he has not told us yet what he intends to do about it.

Mr. Eden: I hope there will be an opportunity, but I cannot yet say when.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that we are now trying to discuss, when we are talking about Business for next week, some Debate on a hypothetical matter of which we have no official knowledge. What is before the House is the Business for next week.

Mr. Muff: On a point of Order. I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that less than half an hour ago we had an authoritative statement from the junior Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) that the Government had made up its mind, and had changed its mind.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to ask the Leader of the House—he may be surprised at my asking such a question—if there is any information forthcoming about when we are to have a discussion on the Scottish Education Bill.

Mr. Eden: I cannot give a date, but I hope it will be before I come back from San Francisco.

Commander Bower: In view of the fact that the success of the San Francisco Conference would appear to depend on whether all nations, especially Poland, are represented there, would it not be better to have the Debate on Poland on Tuesday, and to debate the San Francisco Conference on Thursday?

Mr. Eden: I had naturally thought about the order of these Debates. In actual fact we had originally intended, as perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, to have the San Francisco Debate before Easter. We put it off, because I thought the nearer it was to the meeting the more convenient it would be to the House. It is quite impossible to have it later, because there is a long way to go, and we must get there a day or two before the Conference begins. It is not practicable for the Debates to follow one after the other, as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

Mr. Stokes: Is it the intention of the Government to afford an opportunity for a Debate on Bretton Woods, or are we to conclude that since no more reference is being made to it on Thursday, the matter has now been killed, despite the Chancellor of the Exchequer's behind-the-scenes endeavours?

Mr. Eden: I think the position remains unchanged, that the House will be consulted before any final decision is taken, and that is where we stand.

Mr. McNeil: It has been customary, with the indulgence of the Chair, to proceed a little beyond the Business for the following week. May I therefore request the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that we will have an opportunity of discussing the stage to which the Minister of Health has taken his negotiations on the White Paper?

Mr. Eden: I had hoped I had made it plain that when the Government have taken any decision on this matter, and

the first step must clearly be for the Government to take, they must then take into account how the House will be informed and what opportunity will be given for debate.

Commander Kinģ-Hall: Do the Government feel able to give time to discuss the Motion about the public utterances of Ministers, which stands in my name?

[That in the opinion of this House Members of His Majesty's Government should refrain from attacking each other in public until the conclusion of hostilities with Germany.]

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I should not have thought that discussion of my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion would be the very best means of promoting the cause he has at heart.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Leader of the House tell us what are the Votes on which the Supply Days are being taken?

Mr. Eden: I am sorry. On Tuesday it will be the Foreign Office and other related Votes, and on Thursday the appropriate Votes will be put down.

Sir Georģe Schuster: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when time can be found to take the Motion on Resettlement of Service Personnel which stands in my name and the names of some 3o of my hon. Friends:

[That this House is of the opinion that the Government's plans for the resettlement in civilian life of Service personnel and war workers constitute a major national issue; that steps should be taken to ensure that such plans cover all sections of the community engaged on work of national importance connected with the war effort; and that the plans should receive further consideration at an early date.]

Mr. Eden: I could not hold out hopes for a discussion of the Motion, but I should have thought that there might be a discussion upon that issue on one of the Supply Days before very long.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill? We hoped that it will be withdrawn, though I suppose it is too much to hope that, but would the Leader of the House


give an undertaking that when the Bill, which would alter completely the Private Bill procedure in this House—and why that should be necessary I do not know—is taken, we shall be allowed a free vote?

Mr. Eden: I should like to consider that.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the interest which has been expressed, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that until we have had an opportunity of discussing any proposed change, the policy of the Government as expressed in the White Paper will remain unchanged?

Mr. Speaker: I have already stated that what we are considering is the Business of the House and not the policy of the Government.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I was not seeking in the least to depart from the advice you, Sir, have given to the House but as there is not to be a Debate for some time, surely it is in Order to ask the Leader of the House whether the policy of the Government will remain the same in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing only with Business.

Mr. Turton: In view of the importance of the San Francisco Debate will the Leader of the House consider giving two days to that Debate, so that on one of the days we can concentrate upon the Imperial aspects of the matter?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that our present plans would not allow us to give two days. If more time can be given on one day I will consider that.

Mr. Petherick: On the question of a two days' Debate next week does the Leader of the House appreciate that it is important to have the Debate on the general war situation, which will presumably include some statement on Poland, first, because that may have a great effect on the views that hon. Members may adopt on the question of a world organisation? What has happened in Poland and what may happen are of extreme importance. It is a test case and has an important bearing on the wider position.

Mr. Eden: Of course we all understand the importance of the Polish issue in its

relation to all other matters but I would ask the House to remember that we are not the only people concerned and that the Conference is to meet at a certain date and that it really is not physically possible, if we are going to discuss San Francisco, to put the other Debate in advance of it. There are many aspects of San Francisco which the House can and should discuss before the British Delegation goes to San Francisco, quite apart from the importance of Polish affairs.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Leader of the House, in view of the answer which he gave me about a discussion on the Scottish Education Bill before he returns from San Francisco, whether I am to understand that there will be a cable from that Conference about the Scottish Education Bill?

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Reported, with Amendments from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday, 24th April; and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 66.]

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, loth April].

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 4.—(Land affected by Government war work or damaged by Government war use.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 44, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorize—

(a) the acquisition of—

(i) any common or open space (as those expressions are respectively defined in and for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944);
(ii) any easement over or right restrictive of the user of any common or open space;
(iii) any land forming part of a public footpath or bridlepath; or
(b) the discharge or modification of any restriction as to the user of any common or open space
except by means of a compulsory purchase order made by any of the Ministers specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section and such order shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament:"—[Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday emphasised the importance of the issue which is raised in this Amendment, and I think the Committee are grateful to him for having addressed us so early on this all-important subject. This Amendment is undoubtedly one of the most important which has been moved, because it deals with a matter which has aroused great apprehensions in the public mind and has given rise to expressions of public opinion which reveal a determination on the part of the public that the area of land devoted to public uses should not be curtailed. I do not think the strength of that opinion had been realised when the Bill was drafted, and it is a good thing that on second thoughts it has been recognised that such a feeling exists in the country. Perhaps it may seem rather odd that there should be so much feeling. We might have thought that a people who had


put up with the atrocities of ribbon development for so many years and had seen much of the country-disfigured might not be so particular about a matter of this kind, but there is a very great feeling about it and it is not confined to the leaders and members of organisations who are interested in ensuring the preservation of the countryside but is an immense popular feeling. Some hon. Members may recall the enthusiasm which used to be aroused many years ago by the songs of Sir Harry Lauder. One of those songs dealt with the speculations of a Scottish soldier on why a soldier should fight so keenly for his country when, in spite of all his efforts, he did not get much of it for himself. But, all the same, there is that very strong feeling in the country, and this Amendment is the result of it.
Having listened carefully to what the Chancellor said yesterday I feel that there is good reason why such strong feeling should have been aroused. Perhaps it is a good thing that the Chancellor should have laid it down that it shall be the duty of the Commission to hear and consider any representations from any society concerned with the preservation of the countryside or the preservation of rights of way. But we must ask ourselves whether this is a suitable subject to be dealt with in this way. One of the matters which gives us great concern at the moment is how Parliament is going to carry on its functions and deal with all the business which will be coming up in the future and it is clear to me that devices such as this Commission will have to be employed; but that raises the question of what are the issues with which they should deal, and to my mind the disposal of common land, in view of the strong feeling which exists in the country and the fact that it will not be possible to go back upon decisions which have been taken, ought to be decided by Parliament itself.
If I understand aright the argument of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor he said this Amendment was going too far and would take common land, rights of way and other kindred questions out of the Bill altogether. But there are only two ways in which they can be dealt with. They can be taken out of the Bill altogether, or they can be dealt with precisely in the way in which it is proposed to deal with them in this

Amendment, that is by the decision of Parliament, and I think that is the proper way. I have given some little thought to this matter and as at present advised I feel that if my hon. and learned Friend who has moved the Amendment chooses to take it to a Division, I shall be obliged to follow him into the Lobby. I find that the efforts of the Chancellor have not allayed the anxiety which has been felt. I still receive letters about it. I had one from my county authority pointing out that whereas everybody is anxious that every step should be taken to conserve expenditure this is not one of the matters in which the financial interest should be regarded as paramount.

Mr. Turton: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White). Listening to the Debate yesterday it struck me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not really dealing with the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) had moved. Let me quote the words which he used when speaking on the Amendment:
Its effect would be that however slight the interference with public amenity by any particular war work and however valuable and extensive the war work in question might be, it would be essential, so far as the Bill is concerned, that the land should be restored to its previous use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1895.]
But that is not the Amendment. The Amendment makes it clear that in the case of common lands and open spaces Parliament and Parliament alone should determine whether or not they should be taken from the people. There is nothing new in this. Let me quote from Section 19 of the Development and Road Improvements Fund Act, 1909, which dealt with the question of common land in connection with road frontages and other purposes:
Where an Order made by the Development Commissioners under Part I or Part II of this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space or allotment, the Order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the Order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public.


The first part of that Section is word for word the same as the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend, and if the Chancellor were to say that the Amendment is not acceptable because it does not repeat the whole of the provisions of that Section rq—in other words if we were to put in the exception providing for giving in exchange other land not being less in area—I for one, and I feel sure my hon. and learned Friend, would be perfectly willing to move the Amendment in that amended form. The Forestry Act, 1919, used exactly the same words.
3.45 p.m.
I am not going through the long chain of Acts—they were touched on yesterday —but in all of them you had the protection given that Parliament and not a Minister, Parliament and not a local authority, Parliament and not a public commission, should decide what common land should or should not be taken. In this war more common land has been used for war purposes, I believe, than ever before in the history of this country. This is a grave menace to the public open spaces of this country. Parliament should watch whether that land goes back to the common holders and the people of this country, or remains in the hands of Government Departments. We shall later be considering what Government Departments are going to have this extra right. One is the Department that is the agent for all other Departments for the obtaining of land. We should be very careful lest we give these Departments the unrestricted right of taking commons, except by going to the Commission. In one part of his speech—I hope I shall be allowed to follow him very gently on this part—the Chancellor talked as if he were going to make some concession later on. I am not going into that in detail, but he gave the case away when he said "I am going to see that factories are not taken under Clause 8." In fact, there was only one factory. It is not the question of the one factory that we are determining to-day, but the question of the large amount of common land which is occupied by Service buildings or by airfields, or which is used for other war purposes. A good example of the use of common land is given in the Second Report—published a fortnight ago—of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the release of requisi-

tioned land and buildings. Paragraph 21 says:
An airfield with hangars has been constructed on boo acres of farm land and 260 acres of common land in the 'green belt.' The airfield was required to fly off aircraft of a larger type than those hitherto produced by the firm concerned and the site is stated to be ideal for this purpose; £250,000 has been spent on the buildings. Your Committee were informed that the sole assurance given was to the Ministry of Agriculture and the County Council concerned to the effect that the Department would require this site for war purposes only.
The Committee later give their conclusions on this case. In paragraph 33, they say:
Your Committee consider that this case is an illustration of how existing legislation fails to protect common land.
Here is an opportunity of doing what the Select Committee on National Expenditure have recommended to the House should be done: that is, to bring common land used for war work into line with common land used for other purposes. They point out that there is a flaw in the machinery. No concession that the Chancellor gave, or even hinted at, would deal with this case, or with many other similar cases. He said that he was going to deal later with structures that were not substantial or not permanent. But there are cases which will be in the minds of the Committee. There are, I believe, many airfields on common land at present in this country. On Blackheath Common there is a lorry park. Is that going to be retained, so that Londoners lose that part of the common? In Ashdown Forest there is a wireless station. The Chancellor talked 'about some of these erections on common land being, in. his view, not eyesores.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I said "works," not "erections."

Mr. Turton: On Marlborough Common there is a hospital. Is that going to remain? Are those who enjoy Marlborough Common to be deprived of all that land, without Parliament intervening? On Dartford Heath there is a large camp and sewage farm. Is that going to be taken, without Parliament knowing anything about it? At Huyton there is a public playing field, with defence works in the middle of the cricket pitch. What is going to happen there? It seems to me that this is a matter which Parliament alone can decide.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order. For the first time since tile war began, a great many matters which are covered by security have been mentioned in a speech. Will this be published in HANSARD? This is the first occasion on which the hatter has arisen.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I think that, at the present stage of the war, it is possible for this discussion to be printed.

Mr. Turton: If I have offended, I am sorry; but I think the Committee should know these things, and I do not think that what I say will give a great deal of comfort to our German foes. One danger is inherent in this Bill, unless this Amendment is accepted. It will be possible for the Minister to take over this common land, and to sell it to some other person. For that reason, primarily, it is wrong that the machinery of this Bill should be used for common land. There is alternative machinery—the proper machinery of this House: that of Provisional Order and Private Bills. That enables the whole question to be gone into. It may be that, when this House considers the particular case of the common land, it may say, "We think that the Department shall have this land if they give in exchange other land that is suitable." To my mind, the way for that exchange to be made is by the machinery of the Private Bill Committee or the Provisional Order procedure of this House. That is a far better way than by some mandatory Clauses in this Bill. In some cases the substituted land will not be sufficient recompense: in some cases there will not be a possible recompense; but this Amendment gives, I think, the very minimum that the people of Britain should ask for commons. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer adheres to that obstinacy which he cloaks with a very sweet, and apparently reasonable, amiability, I for one, and I hope other hon. Members, will follow my hon, and learned Friend into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Creech Jones: I want to identify myself and most Members of my Party with the case which has been presented in the discussion on this Amendment. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been advanced, but only to say that we are profoundly disturbed at the proposals of the Govern-

ment in regard to common land. We are completely dissatisfied with the rather limited concessions which the Chancellor announced yesterday, and which are to be embodied in the Bill, and I would plead with him, in view of the general unanimity of the Committee, and of the very considerable body outside which has been well mobilised—because the history of commons is in the minds of large numbers of people—to satisfy the Committee now, and concede what is asked for in the Amendment. In announcing his concessions yesterday, he gave no indication that the Government were prepared to offer compensatory land. I would identify myself completely with what the hon. Member said about the vital importance, in view of the history of common lands, of the Committee satisfying itself that in these transfers of property at least the public interest has been properly safeguarded. I hope, without repeating all the arguments which have been so eloquently put, that he will consider meeting the Committee on this Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I have no wish whatever to foreclose this Debate on the first Amendment we have had dealing with this vital question of commons and open spaces. At the same time, as there is evidence of misapprehension of what the Amendment proposes and what the Government propose in regard to the safeguarding of commons and open spaces, I think it would be as well if I intervened now: Then, if hon. Members are not satisfied with what I say, and want to press the matter further, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a further statement.
This Amendment, taken by itself, raises a rather narrow issue. It does not suggest that commons and open spaces should be free from compulsory acquisition where valuable war works have been erected upon them. What it suggests is that the procedure for acquisition in those cases should be different from the ordinary procedure laid down in Part II of the Bill. Several hon. Members have gone a little wider than that, and have suggested that there should be no power of any sort or kind for any open spaces. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said last night that, unless there was an


absolute promise of substituted land, he would support a proposal for excluding commons from the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: What I said was that if the Chancellor accepted the Amendment giving control to Parliament, well and good. If he refused to accept the Amendment the only alternative which would induce me to refrain from voting in favour of the Amendment was the substitution of an equal area of land, but I preferred the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: I perceived that clearly from my hon. Friend. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) in his speech last night said:
… it would be much more satisfactory from every point of view that these open spaces should be withdrawn from the ambit of the Bill altogether; or else that the safeguard which this Amendment proposes, namely, that they should be acquired only with the approval of Parliament, should be included in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1893.]
My hon. and learned Friend had on the Paper an Amendment, which he has Dow taken off, to exclude commons and open spaces from the ambit of the Bill, but in withdrawing his earlier Amendment and substituting this Amendment for a different procedure in the case of commons and open spaces he seems clearly to recognise that examples still exist where it may be right and proper for common land to be acquired. As everybody knows, there is a case at High Wycombe where a very valuable factory has been erected on common land. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) referred to a case where a hospital has been erected on common land, and no one suggests that this valuable building should automatically pass back to the lord of the manor or the commoners. I think there is scope for agreement, therefore, that it may be necessary for a common or an open space to be acquired where valuable war works have been put upon it. It is something to have secured a measure of agreement upon that matter. But the Amendment proposes a procedure different from the proposal in the Bill. It proposes that where a common or open space may fall to be acquired, or where any easement under or over a common or open space falls to be acquired, or where a footpath is being stopped up, the procedure should

be what is known as the Provisional Order Bill procedure in the House of Commons. Clearly, that means there would be two concurrent procedures—one for the stopping up of footpaths and another for the acquisition of land. Take the case where there is a valuable war work upon private land and over that private land there runs a footpath. In such a case as that, the proposal for the acquisition of the land would have to go to the Commission established under the Bill, and the proposal for stopping up the footpath would have to be carried through by means of the Provisional Order procedure in the, House of Commons.
Now I come to the question of easements. One of the greatest war works concerned is that of the oil pipe lines running through various parts of England to convey oil in the event of the failure of transport. Those pipe lines pass in some cases under common land and in other cases under private land. If this Amendment were adopted, so far as acquiring the easement under the private land is concerned the question would go before the Commission, but so far as acquiring the easement under the common is concerned there would have to be the Provisional Order Bill procedure. Can anybody really suggest that it would be satisfactory to have two quite separate procedures for dealing with precisely the same subject matter?

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that these cases cannot be met by the Amendment before us? If not, it will be possible for the Government to table Amendments to the Amendment which we are considering.

Mr. Woodburn: Where the Amendment proposes that this can be done by a Provisional Order Bill, can we not get a more simplified arrangement?

Mr. Peake: All sorts of alternatives can be suggested, but I think it only fair that I should discuss the Amendment which is before the Committee. Hon. Members have had more than two months to consider this matter; the Bill was published early in January. Under our modern procedure, amendments of this nature can be put down before the Second Reading, and if my hon. Friends have any suggestions they can put them down and we can then discuss them.

Sir H. Williams: The Government will have to put down alternative suggestions; otherwise, they will not get this Clause in its present form.

Mr. Peake: If my hon. Friend has made up his mind which Lobby he is going into, there is no use in my addressing further remarks to him. I am trying to persuade my hon. Friends that the Government have a good case as regards this Amendment.

Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be fair? This Amendment has been on the Paper for over a month. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the Amendment, the proper form is for the Chancellor to put down an Amendment.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend is making himself a little ridiculous, I think. He expects the Government to amend back bench Members' Amendments. The short answer is that we prefer to draft our own Amendments and put them down in our own way.
Let me explain to the Committee what the Government propose to do as regards safeguarding commons and open spaces. In the first place, we have deleted the proposal—to which exception was taken on the Second Reading—in Clause 6 of the Bill which provided for the purchase of the land on account of its depreciated value. That proposal has disappeared. In the second place, as regards proposals for purchase under Clause 5 of the Bill, we have put down an Amendment to Clause II which provides that the Commission will be under an obligation, in every case, to report against the acquisition of a common or open space unless the war works put upon it are of a substantial and permanent nature. That means that all these things to which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon has referred, such as lorry parks and works of that character, will disappear. Hon. Members may be quite certain that 98 or 99 per cent. of all the common land occupied at present by Government Departments will be restored as common land. The cases where common land may be acquired will be very exceptional. They will be cases where the Government war works are of a substantial and permanent character. If hon. Members will look at Clause II of the Bill they will see an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend which

makes that perfectly clear. [Interruption.] I really must finish my argument without constant interruption from my hon. Friend. I shall have something to say to him later. My hon. Friend has not put down an Amendment to take commons and open spaces out of the purview of the Bill. He is supporting an Amendment to provide for a different procedure in the case of commons and open spaces. Which are the objects which my hon. Friend wishes to take clean out of the purview of the Bill? Which are the classes of land to which my hon. Friend wishes to give a specially privileged position under the Bill? The two classes of land in which he is specially interested are race courses and civil aerodromes. [Interruption.]

The Deputy-Chairman: I do hope this Amendment will be kept fairly strictly to commons; otherwise, we cannot possibly get on with the other Clauses.

Mr. Peake: I bow absolutely to your ruling, Mr. Williams, and submit very humbly to it. I would like to make it clear that there is no possibility of a common being acquired under Clause 8, Sub-section (5), of the Bill.
If I may, I now wish to deal with the question raised last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft—that of substituted land. My hon. Friend says, with great justice, that in all cases of recent legisation for compulsory acquisition of land there is always inserted a proviso that if common land is acquired for public purposes a similar area of other land shall be substituted therefor, to be added to the common or open space. That is perfectly true. That is a common feature of our legislation dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land except, so far as I remember, acquisition under the Defence Act of 1842. That being the case, hon. Members wish to know why a similar provision was not inserted into this Bill. If it is found that it is necessary to take part of a common because it has war works of a substantial character and value upon it, why not undertake to put an equal area of new land into the common? I think the reason why an unlimited obligation of that character cannot be undertaken is this. In the case where an area of land falls to be acquired on account of the valuable nature of the war works erected upon it, such as the factory at High Wycombe to which I have referred,


it would mean an absolute obligation to purchase adjoining land of an equal area —perhaps good agricultural land.

Mr. Keelinģ: On a point of Order. May I point out that what my right hon. Friend is saying has nothing to do with this Amendment? He is speaking on an Amendment which appears later on the Paper. This Amendment deals purely with the question of procedure—whether common land should be acquired by order of the Minister or only with the approval of this House.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must not refer to a later Clause. I will watch him very carefully and see whether he does so or not.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member for Lowestoft and, I think, other hon. Members as well, have referred to the fact that they propose to vote for this Amendment unless ah unqualified assurance is given that substitute land, equal in extent and area, will in every case be provided. Am I not therefore in order, Mr. Williams, in addressing myself to this question of substitute land?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in rather a difficulty. It will be remembered that, last night, in dealing with this matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a fairly wide account of the Government's provisions, but I was anxious to save the discussions on separate points of the Bill; that seems to be the main use of the Committee stage. For that reason, although the right hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the Committee wishes to put the reasons why he thinks the Amendment should not be carried, I think it is possibly justifiable, but I will say that I hope he will deal with that Amendment and not bring in other Amendments, even if they are related to it, so that there may be a free discussion later when we come to them. I do not want any hon. Member to be cut out of the discussion of a proper Amendment, and I hope I may have the assistance of the Committee and hon. Members of all parties.

Mr. Marshall: On a point of Order. Some of us want to know what the Government propose to do if they do not concede this Amendment, and the fact that they would be prepared, in certain circumstances, to substitute other land for

that taken away would naturally influence our minds. We should like to know exactly what their views are.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that is why I would not give a very definite Ruling. I did think that the Committee ought to have some knowledge of what else the Government propose, but, of course, the Committee has another way of obtaining that knowledge, and that is by reading the other Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Peake: I think I can deal with this question very briefly and generally. In the case of a purchase by a local authority of land which they wish to use for a new sewage works or housing 'scheme, the authority is dealing with a clean slate. They can choose either common land or other land, and it is a quite fair and reasonable thing that if they take common land, there should be an obligation to add land in substitution for the common. Under this Bill we are dealing with faits acconiplis. The situation exists. The factory is on the common and something has got to be done about it to relieve the position. An absolute obligation to add substitute land would merely shift the area of compulsory purchase elsewhere, and it might mean that agricultural land, possibly good agricultural land, adjacent to the common, would then become subject to compulsory purchase and that would simply be shifting the burden. I am rather surprised at my hon. Friends behind me supporting a proposal that the burden of compulsory purchase should be shifted elsewhere, and that persons whose property is not in danger of compulsory acquisition, as the Bill stands at present, should support a procedure which will make a great deal of land which is not in jeopardy subject to the possibility of compulsory acquisition under the Bill.
So far as substitute land is concerned, we have put a Clause on the Order Paper giving the Government Department enabling powers to purchase land by agreement. [Interruption.] Yes, by agreement; that is the point. It would not be right to provide compulsory powers, but we have given an enabling power and we have also agreed that, amongst the various matters which the Commission will have to consider—and the Commission will be the operative force under this Bill—we are prepared to


add words to the matters which the Commissioners will consider, with a view to providing that one of the things they will have to consider will be the offer of substitute land which a Government Department may make where part of a common falls to be acquired.
If I might return to the merits of the Amendment as it stands, and the more narrow issue, I would say that I have pointed out that it would mean concurrent procedures, at the same time but of different character, for settling the same set of issues. You have a factory partly on private land, and partly on a common. It is desired. to acquire the site, in order either to control the use or preserve the value of the money which has been spent for the taxpayers. In the case of half a factory, you will have to go through the procedure under the Bill and go to the Commission; in the case of the other half, the Provisional Order procedure will have to be adopted. There are plenty of instances where the area of requisitioned land is partly common and partly other land, and there are innumerable cases of private land which is the subject of requisition, and which has public footpaths, bridle paths or roads running across it. If my hon. Friend will read his Amendment, he will see that, where these footpaths are concerned, the Provisional Order Bill procedure would have to be adopted, and it seems to me to be quite absurd to have two sets of procedure. You cannot have concurrent procedures dealing with the same set of facts, one before the Commission and another before the Private Bill Committee in this House of Commons—and, of course, in another place—dealing with precisely the same set of facts and conditions. I do suggest that that would lead to chaos and confusion. I suggest that the right body to deal with all these matters is a Commission which inspires the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, and we intend that such a Commission shall be established.
I think I have said enough to show that this is not a course which we can contemplate. We want to get sensible decisions in all these cases, but a Select Committee may take a view different from the Commission which will be dealing with a whole series of these cases. The Commission. as a result of its experience,

will become expert in dealing with matters of this kind. They will establish a body of precedents as they go along, and it seems to me most unreasonable to suggest that, in respect of individual schemes, part of the plan of acquisition shall be dealt with by the Commission and another part by the Private Bill Committee of this House. I therefore suggest that hon. Members should consider carefully the very real steps which we have taken to safeguard the position of commons and open spaces in the Bill, and should realise that this particular Amendment is quite unworkable.

Mr. Furness: I understood the Financial Secretary to begin his speech with a statement that he was going to try to satisfy the Committee by certain explanations, and that, if that did not go down, we should later on get the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as I am concerned, I tried to follow these matters, but I found the Financial Secretary singularly unconvincing. The right hon. Gentleman made a rather unfair attack, I think, upon the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton). I understand that the Financial Secretary is one of that hon. Member's constituents, and all I can say, as I also am one of his constituents, is that, if he has dissatisfied one of his voters, he has probably pleased another.
I am amazed at the argument which Ministers constantly put to the House, that a matter is so complicated and detailed that it has to be settled by expert men and not by hon. Members. After all, I suppose we shall, next week, or very shortly, be taking measures which will result in people having to pay away a great part of their annual income. We pass laws under which people may be condemned to death, we approve treaties and deal with matters of the highest importance to millions of people, and we govern one of the great countries of the world. Yet, so it is said, we are not sensible, experienced or level-headed enough to decide questions about roads, footpaths and so on, and I really think it is high time that the House declared that, whatever our politics, we are an assembly of representative men and women, understanding the districts from which we come, and that, though we may differ on politics, we are, on the whole, agreed on matters of practical common sense, and that, if anybody should say


that this House or the next House, could not be trusted, if a hospital had been put up on one square yard of public land, not to demand that it should be pulled down, then the sooner the House ceases to exist the better. This House should keep all matters which affect the Whole country in its own hands, and not trust them to these tribunals, very often made up of the same stage army of expert men, though men of undoubted ability.
The Financial Secretary also said that it would be inconvenient if certain pieces of land fell under one procedure before the Tribunal and certain others under another procedure in this House. In business, if you are a small man, working on your own, without any clerical staff, matters of procedure coming before, say, the local town council might be very burdensome, but here we have a representative of a great Government Department, supported by able, experienced and very numerous public servants, highly trained and skilled and with all the machinery and paraphernalia of Government, who is saying that, with all this assistance, they would find it burdensome and oppressive if they had to present a case to the House. I look forward with a great deal of pleasure to voting in the opposite Lobby from the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope that the Government will not make it necessary for us to go into the Division Lobby, towards which my hon. Friend opposite is looking with so much pleasure. In all quarters of the Committee there is a desire that the Government shall accept, in principle, the suggestion of the Amendment. They could, if they desired, make any necessary amendment of this Amendment on the Report stage; there are, possibly, other points which could be met there. Unless some suitable alteration is proposed by the Government, difficulties may arise in certain cases of footpaths and easements. It would be perfectly practicable to find a way of getting over any difficulty and avoiding special Orders of confirmation by the House simply in respect of a footpath or a few yards of land. No one wishes to see that.
It ought to be possible to provide against these contingencies, but it is of essential importance that the House should recognise in the structure of the Bill that the commons of England are inalienable,

except in very important and unusual circumstances. It is very difficult to realise how deep is the feeling of ordinary people in respect of old common rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) spoke very eloquently last night about the sins of this House in the past in allowing the commons to he taken away. We are united above all our differences in the desire to preserve this priceless heritage. Therefore, the hon. and learned-Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has done a very great service in putting down this Amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the intentions of the Government and a series of proposals with which we cannot deal in detail now, but those are the second thoughts of the Government. They are not in this Bill. It has been necessary to put in these proposals to safeguard public rights, as Amendments, after the whole structure of the Bill had been carefully thought out and planned. It is because there was no provision of this kind in the structure of the Bill that my hon. and learned Friend put down the Amendment, and it is because the matter is of such importance that many of us on all sides of the Committee earnestly desire that the Government should be willing to accept the principle, a principle upon which, I believe, we are all united.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think the Committee is aware of the fable of the wind and the sun. We have had the rude wind—I am not using the word in any offensive sense——of the Financial Secretary, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come out with the sunshine of his smile and meet the wishes of the Committee. I am not going to make a long speech because that is really the gist of what I wished to say. But there are two further points I should like to make. The first is that either this only affects a very small number of cases or it affects a substantial number of cases. If it only affects a very small number of cases, why not have this procedure, even if it is unusual or difficult, in these few cases? If in fact it affects not a very small number of cases but a substantial number then the House is all the more determined that the procedure in the Bill should not be carried out.
My second point is this: The main argument of the Financial Secretary as I


understand it is that this might involve two different types of procedure, one of the Commission set up by the Bill and the other of the House of Commons set up by the Amendment, and that this would in some cases constitute concurrent jurisdiction. The real fact is that the criteria in respect to private and public rights are very different. It may be especially suitable when you are a landowner or some other person interested in the land that your case should come before the Commission, because if you cannot get the restoration that you want you may be satisfied with compensation. It is' only right that some judicial body should make that decision. But where the issue is the use of a common or a right of way, that is not a private but a public matter in respect of which this House is a more suitable tribunal to come to for a decision. The argument that if this Amendment is carried there might be two aspects of the same case does not in the least disturb me. It is inherent in the facts that the private matter should if necessary be decided on grounds of compensation and that the public matter should come before this House.
But of course the Amendment is not the only way of solving it. Those who support the Amendment on all sides of the Committee do not ask, I imagine, that this particular Amendment shall be meticulously carried. We ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the substance of it. I am sure we should be willing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to substitute some other Amendment which concedes the principle, and it is really that which I ask him to promise to do. I do not want to say anything discourteous or threatening to the Government, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his wide experience must realise the very considerable feeling there is among those present, and even if he could secure a majority by calling to his aid the unseen legions who are not present here in the Chamber I am sure that his knowledge of the House would not permit him to take that course. I hope he will give an assurance that the principles we are seeking to carry out shall in some shape or form be embodied in some proposals that the Government are prepared to make or to accept.

Sir William Davison: I am bound to say that I found the speech of the Financial Secretary very

unconvincing. In one part of it he clearly showed the essentiality of the Amendment when he said that a Select Committee of the House might very well take a different view from the Commission. If that is so, is it not essential that in public matters, such as those just alluded to with regard to common rights, this House should have the last ward? If there is any difference of opinion, it should be this House that should come to a decision. I am bound to say, as I have said throughout, that I think the Government have mismanaged the matter and that the Bill ought to have been withdrawn and re-drafted. It is very unsatisfactory for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put down long Amendments to be considered after Amendments have been previously put on the Paper by Members of the House. It would have been a far cleaner job and more satisfactory and have been in the interests of more rapid business if the Bill had been withdrawn and redrafted.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing that now.

Sir W. Davison: That is by the way.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot have any "by the ways "on Committee stage, I am afraid.

Sir W. Davison: I am sorry, but talking of common lands, I thought that I might say something by the way. Be that as it may, many of the open spaces in this country have been acquired by local authorities and are used as recreation grounds and places for public amusement. In all such cases local authorities should not be subject to the decision of any Commission and it should be a matter for Parliament to decide, if these open spaces which they have acquired for the recreation of their citizens are to be taken away from them. Local authorities all through the country and also the boroughs of London feel very strongly that if any of these open spaces which have been acquired by them for the recreation of their citizens should be taken away, it should only be by decision of Parliament and not by decision of any Commission. They ask that as far as they are concerned Parliament should decide if it is essential that any particular open space which they have acquired should be taken away from them. Parliament should decide whether it was in the national interest and desirable that any such open space should be


taken away. The Government would be well advised to respond to the appeal which has been made to them from all quarters of the House not indeed to accept this Amendment in its present wording, but to agree to insert words to the effect that where it is proposed to acquire a common or open space or land which has been purchased by a local authority for the benefit of its citizens and of the public Parliament should decide the matter.

Sir H. Williams: I would support the appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should meet the obvious desire of the Committee. I am not very good on history of more than a hundred years back, but I think it was about 1770 that Buckingham Palace was first acquired. The then Queen, the wife of George III, said to the then Prime Minister that she would like to have St. James's Park incorporated in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. She said that it would not cost much. "No," said the Prime Minister, "only two Crowns, the Crown of England and the Crown of Scotland." That is the kind of thing which is raised by this issue. St. James's Park is involved in this issue. Somebody's conception has been constructed there. I do not know that I can name it, that monstrous, hideous thing which somebody designed, looking like nothing on earth and incapable of being destroyed. I do not know what it is; it is awful. It is on some ground to which the public used to have access; you could not be ordered away by a policeman. It was ground to which the public had access and some incompetent creature designed the most hideous thing the world had ever known. The Bill must apply to this.

Sir J. Anderson: No.

Sir H. Williams: Then the difference is even greater. There is nothing that the great mass of the people resent more than to be ordered off ground they are used to entering. Railings have been pulled down in Hyde Park, and if you are not careful they will pull down some of your buildings. A great civil servant once explained to a Prime Minister how much better the Civil Service could run the job. The Prime Minister said, "I agree but if you run it for six months you will

all be on lamp-posts because you do not know how to carry the public with you." This Bill is based on principles of a lot of bureaucrats who do not know how to appreciate the position of the public. We do not know when Hyde Park is to be properly liberated. They have made an incredible mess of it, although it was right to do so in the circumstances which prevailed. It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking cross. I am trying to lead him out of his difficulty. He is in an awful mess at the moment, and does not yet know it. If the Government adopt this procedure, it is going to be very complicated. If they adopt what is in the Amendment, hardly anything will ever come before Parliament. That is the real answer. They will not dare to bring these things before Parliament if there is opposition, and accordingly the Commission will be much more careful if this Amendment is accepted.
4.45 P.m.
It is a very fortunate thing that there is only one institution in this country of which a lot of people are afraid—it is this House in its corporate capacity. Individually, we are insulted in many ways, but when we get busy in our corporate capacity, even War Cabinets change their decisions. The real trouble about Cabinet decisions is that Members of Cabinets think they are sacred; they are not sacred. I have seen them altered dozens of times and have occasionally helped a little in the process and I am helping now. The decision the Cabinet has made on this, will be altered before this Bill becomes law. I suggest to the Chancellor that if he wants to get his Bill with reasonable expedition, the sooner he makes the concession the better. It is a most awful waste of time for Ministers to go on fighting a losing battle. After all there are 30 Members of the Committee who intend to speak, as far as I can make out, and the Debate may go on into the chilly late hours. It is a long time since we had one of those delightful institutions, breakfast in the small hours. I thought in modern times that it was only the War Cabinet which did that, but it is time we imitated these great men. I really would beg the Chancellor to realise that he has not a supporter in the Chamber at this moment, except the people who for the moment decorate the Front Bench and they have to vote,


otherwise they get the sack. We are not in that position and I would beg him to make a concession in time and save the good feelings of our delightful friend the Patronage Secretary because he carries all the burden of this when Ministers are recalcitrant, and let him go happy tonight, because if we go on, he will be miserable.

Mr. Marshall: I have listened to this Debate and it seems to me that as we go along the feeling gets stronger for this Amendment. I can state my position very briefly. These common possessions are so precious to the people of this country that only Parliament should have the right to vary those possessions by taking something away from them. I would not allow any commission to have the function of taking away the common lands of the people of this country. I listened to the Chancellor yesterday and his speech, though couched in very precise and logical terms, left me cold. It left the position where the Commission could recommend the acquisition of the common lands of this country and, according to the other Clauses of the Bill, common lands could be acquired and then re-sold to a private individual. That would be an intolerable thing.
It is quite true that the Chancellor grouped together all the very little concessions he had made in the Bill—such as the right of anybody interested in common lands to appear before the Commission and state their case—and the Financial Secretary to-day has indicated that they are prepared to put something down that will enable the Treasury to purchase land by agreement by way of substitution, but that is not enough. My position is that when this tidying-up process is over, the total acreage of the common lands and open spaces of this country should not be less as a consequence of this process. That is my stand and I think there is a tremendous feeling in the country behind that attitude. The Chancellor said he had sympathy with the Amendment. No one doubts it. He said there was no difference in principle between himself and the mover of the Amendment, that it was only a difference in method. In my estimation there is a vital difference in principle between the attitude of the Chancellor and of those who want this Amendment carried.
The Chancellor has a clear way out, and I add my appeal to those already made that he should accept the Amendment and allow Parliament to decide on this great and important issue of the common lands of this country, and that where acquisition has to take place owing to the existence of very valuable war buildings on common lands, he shall then provide other lands in substitution. That is the minimum we can demand. I do not think the Chancellor understands the strength of feeling behind this agitation, not only in this Committee but all over the country. As a matter of fact the people of this country since the end of the last war have been enjoying the open spaces here in ever-increasing numbers. Where you had one rambling club you now have 40, and this is going on year by year at an ever-increasing rate. It is one of the most promising aspects of the young men of our generation and I can quite imagine the feelings of despair in their minds if they feel that Parliament has authorised a Commission to take away these very precious rights.
One has only to think about how the common lands were created. Many of them, of course, are remnants left to the public after the old enclosure Acts—one of the most infamous crimes ever perpetrated against the British public. Others have been bequests to the public by all sorts of well-disposed people. Others have been acquired almost by the blood and sweat of the public. I can give an illustration. Only last Saturday I presided over a great gathering in the Peak of Derbyshire when the crown of one of the most beautiful hills of that area was presented to the ramblers of the district. When I say that £500 had been raised by the rambling community around Sheffield to purchase that, the Committee can understand how precious these rights are. As I say, the Chancellor has an easy way out and I am not impressed by the statement of all these difficulties I say that no Commission should be invested with the right to decide this matter; Parliament is the only body that can do it. It would be one of the worst possible tragedies if the people of this country found that this special heritage of theirs was decreased by the processes of this Bill. Then indeed it would be the case that their great possessions had been sold for a mess of pottage.

Mr. Keelinģ: I had hoped that by this time the Chancellor would have yielded to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), whose speeches were both very weighty in their respective ways. However, as he has not, I am bound to point out that both his speech yesterday and the speech of the Financial Secretary to-day succeeded, of course quite unintentionally, in confusing the Committee about the purpose and scope and effect of this Amendment. The Chancellor yesterday said that the Amendment takes commons out of the Bill. It does nothing of the sort. The Financial Secretary to-day dwelt largely with the quite minor issue of footpaths and rights of way—a matter on which I am perfectly sure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) would be quite willing to meet him.
The short point of this Amendment is that what Parliament gave only Parliament should take away. Let me recapitulate very briefly what are the statutory rights of the public in this matter. The Commons Acts of 1876 and 1899 provide for the regulation of commons, and many schemes prepared under these Acts have given the public rights of access to them. The Law of Property Act, 1923, gives the public the right of air and exercise over all metropolitan and urban commons, and over rural commons with the agreement of the owner. No less than 120,000 acres of rural commons have voluntarily been brought under the Act for the benefit of the public. There are many other commons and open spaces and National Trust lands which have been thrown open to the public under special Acts. I submit that what Parliament gave to the public should only be taken away if Parliament is satisfied in each case that it is necessary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday and the Financial Secretary to-day justified their proposal to give power to the Government to take away these commons on the ground that whereas in ordinary circumstances an authority seeking to acquire a common has a freedom of choice, and need not necessarily take that land, in this Bill we are dealing with commons which have already got war works upon them. I fail to see either the

relevance of that distinction or how it can console the members of the public who will be deprived by this Bill of their rights. I can quite understand, and many hon. Members have admitted, that there may be cases in which it is absolutely necessary for a common to be acquired. For instance, there are runways on commons which may have to be acquired, either for use in the next war or for the use of the defence Forces brought into being as a result of the San Francisco Conference. This Amendment merely provides that in such case the assent of Parliament must be sought. The Chancellor yesterday gave no argument at all against this proposal.
I am wondering whether, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a Scot and the Secretary of State for Air—the principal violator of commons—being also a Scot, they have the faintest conception of what commons mean to an Englishman. I understand that there is no such thing as a common in Scotland. If that be so, it may well be that these two right hon. Gentlemen have not understood the weight of public opinion in this country. In England these common lands are the breathing spaces, the play and exercise grounds for townsmen. Some of them have rare birds and flowers upon them. Some are used by commoners in the old sense. I submit that Parliament, having given the public rights over commons, would be false to its trust if it gave the Minister the power to take these rights away. I do hope the Chancellor will now yield to what I am quite sure is the unanimous wish of the Committee.

Major Sir Georģe Davies: I will detain the Committee only a short time because the real arguments on this have been stated. We all listened to a strong man struggling with adversity while the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was trying to give us completely unconvincing reasons, because he was batting on a bad wicket. I would like to recall the argument put forward in a nutshell by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) because that really is the point. There is all the difference in the world between whether the property under consideration is common public property or whether it is personal property. We are here not only as guardians of the public purse but as guardians of the rights of Englishmen in a much wider sense. I say Englishmen because, as was pointed


out, this does not affect the people North of the Tweed. But the issue is there and in this matter we are gravely dissatisfied and apprehensive—

Professor Gruffydd: So are the Welsh.

Sir G. Davies: Over this Measure we have three main apprehensions: first the composition of the Commission; second, the powers of the Commission; and third, this question of public rights in common lands. I urge the Chancellor to appreciate the feeling which there is in all parts of the Committee and in the country on this matter. It is not a question of the wording of this Amendment. It is seldom that the Government are prepared to accept the words of a back bencher's Amendment, however excellent they may be, but generally the ordinary Member's words do give the meat of what he wants. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to incorporate into the final form of this Bill words which will safeguard, to the satisfaction of Members of this House and the rights of the people, the common enjoyment of that which in the past has been their heritage.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I find myself in the unique position to-day of agreeing with the unanimous view of the Committee. Almost needless to say, such an event has never occurred to me before, and that ought to convey to the Chancellor the absolute necessity for meeting the views which have been expressed on this matter. We have had only one argument addressed by the Financial Secretary against the terms of this Amendment. I wondered, as I heard him, whether it was a Home Office or a Treasury argument, and it occurred to me that the explanation might be that having recently moved to the Treasury, the old repressive Home Office mentality was still with him; that he had not quite shaken it off. The right hon. Gentleman argued that this Amendment would m-valve us in what he called "concurrent proceedings." He used those words with such emphasis as to convey that, in concurrent proceedings, there was something formidable, possibly something dangerous, and something into which this Committee ought to look very carefully

before making a decision. But the House has, again and again, provided alternative and current procedures for practically everything under the sun. In Bill after Bill, we have provided concurrent proceedings for almost anything, and I cannot think how many agreements I have signed with the Chancellor which provided that a man should get either this or that, but which usually added the words, "whichever is the better." For example, when we gave the Minister of Labour power to diminish and, if possible, avoid labour disputes we also gave him power to apply alternative proceedings, either to compel the employer to provide machinery to deal with such disputes or to enable the disputes to go to arbitration. I have not come across, in my experience, any Government factory part of which has been built on public land and part of which has been built on private land, although I do not deny that there may be such cases.

Sir J. Anderson: Other works, in many cases.

Mr. Brown: I still maintain that that would be the exception rather than the rule, and if it is not so it is easy to demolish me by giving me the facts. Tell me what proportion of these works have been built on public land and private land or both. If you do not know what the answer is then you should not have the temerity to correct me. After all, I share ignorance which is common to us both, and I cannot be reproached on that ground. There is either a vast number of these cases or there is not. If there is no large number then the inconvenience this Amendment will cause to the Government will be small; if there is a large number then the largeness of that number shows the necessity for the control of the situation. I imagine that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) would have been happy if the Financial Secretary had indicated the difficulty about way-leaves, that there were certain practical difficulties in the wording of the Amendment, that they did not think it would meet the case in the best way, but that the Government would accept its broad principle and try to work out an approved formula to meet the will of the Committee. The Chancellor has no conception, as yet, that this difficulty is one of the least with which he will be faced in getting this Bill through.
In the time I have been in this House I have been concerned with the treatment of holiday camps, in which I have a special interest, and I am going to raise that matter on another stage of this Bill. What the Committee ought to know about is the way in which the Defence (Compensation) Act, 1939, has been operating. That Bill was rushed through in a very short time, with no adequate discussion, and the amount of vile injustice which has been done under that Act, and for which there is no remedy, ought to be an everlasting warning against passing, holes bolus, Bills which confer powers over which the House cannot exercise any control. My earnest advice to the Chancellor—and however much he wrongs me I wish him well—is to accept the spirit of this Amendment, and offer to produce an appropriate formula at a later stage.

Sir J. Anderson: I have listened very attentively to all the speeches which have been made this afternoon, and I have no doubt that the Committee will listen as attentively to what I have to say now on this matter. I am not going to take up a pedantic attitude, because I realise very well the strength of feeling that there is in regard to the preservation of our great open spaces, which mean so much to the people of this land. May I say, incidentally, that although it may be a fact that there are no commons in Scotland that is a matter, not of substance, but only of terminology? Those who have been privileged to spend any considerable period in that delectable country will know that it is rich in open spaces.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Not all common to the public.

Mr. Kirkwood: Never mind the Englishmen, go ahead.

Sir J. Anderson: I am glad to think that I am already beginning to get some support. Although I fully recognise how genuine are the apprehensions which have been expressed, I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the concern which has been evinced by Members refers back to the period when the public conscience in these matters was much less sensitive than it is to-day, and when many deplorable things were done. I do not believe that under this Bill, as it stands, the commons or open spaces of this country would be exposed to any serious threat. In fact,

I think I can claim, on behalf of the Government, that by this Bill, as it stands, and in the Amendments which have been put down in the name of the Government, we have given very ample evidence of our solicitude in this matter. I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was right when he said that in the vast proportion of cases where war works have been carried out on common lands those lands will be delivered back in due season, and restored to a proper condition. There are, however, quite a number of cases where there are war works which it would not be in the public interest to destroy. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) put the dilemma in saying that either the works are extensive, in which case the grounds for accepting this Amendment must be very strong, or that they are not extensive, in which case no matter of great consequence turns on our decision to-day. I believe that the number of cases in which there are extensive and substantial permanent war works on common land is very limited, but there are many instances of land which would be covered by this Amendment, which includes pathways, rights of way, easements of all kinds—

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: If the Government find it difficult to accept my Amendment because it deals with easements, rights of way, and so on, I would be quite prepared to exclude them from the Amendment.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. and learned Friend need not have intervened, because I was about to say that I had no doubt that in so far as this Amendment incidentally covers rights of way, easements and so on those who have supported it would be ready to consider some modification, although it might not be altogether easy to devise the appropriate restrictive words which would have to be incorporated in the Amendment.
I was also about to give some indication of the kind of work on common land which it would be clearly in the public interest to preserve. My mind naturally turns to a case with which, in an earlier state of existence, I was very familiar, namely, the deep shelter, the underground structure, to which access is provided by quite small visible works on the surface. I am sorry to say that I think


it would be imprudent at this stage to get rid finally of all such structures. Equally, I am satisfied that it would be possible to preserve them without any material impairment of the rights and privileges of the public. That is the sort of case to which this provision would apply. I only mention it by way of illustration.
5.15 p.m.
Now I come to the substance of the Amendment which, as has been pointed out, is essentially procedural. Yesterday I spoke somewhat hastily, because I believed it was the desire of the Committee to get on to some other business, and I said that the effect of the Amendment would be to take these commons outside the Bill altogether. What I ought to have said was that the effect would be to take them outside the scheme of the Bill, to make them subject to an entirely different sort of scheme, to deal with them not as war works on which the Government have already entered and expended public money, but in exactly the sort of way which would be appropriate if it were a question of acquiring common land for a public purpose ab initio. That is what I meant when I said the effect would be to take them outside the Bill. If I had said that the effect would he to take them outside the scheme of the Bill, I would have been quite right.
Let me try to put to the Committee in a few words the difficulty that I feel about this purely procedural change, a change which does not, according to the speeches that have been made, challenge in any way the propriety of acquiring permanently war works on common land. What I have in mind is this. The preservation of amenities, the prevention of eyesores, of works which disfigure the landscape of this country, is not a matter which is by any means limited to the case of commons. In this Bill we have been at great pains to try to secure that the main safeguard which we provide in the Bill in the existence of the Commission should be effective to preserve the amenities of the countryside everywhere on common lands or on privately owned land. Incidentally, I was rather interested and a little puzzled to see how sharp was the distinction which my hon. Friends sought to draw between safeguards that they would accept as adequate in the case of privately owned lands and safeguards

they would think necessary in the case of common lands. It is rather an interesting phenomenon. In my view, if the Commission is a body which can be entrusted —as I am determined, so far as it rests with me, it shall be—with the task of safeguarding the general interest all over the country, I do not quite see the reason for making this one exception. It seems to me to be rather a reflection on the Commission we are going to set up.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Surely, in the last resort one can deal with an individual interest by compensation, but one cannot deal with a public interest by compensation.

Sir J. Anderson: But the Commission have the right to say "No" altogether, to say that the land shall not be acquired and that it shall revert to its former user. I was going to make this point in regard both to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). Both of them spoke as if the question at issue in this Amendment were whether the matter should in a particular case be kept within the province of Parliament or taken outside the province of Parliament. But all action to which this Bill relates will be action initiated by a Government Department, for which a Minister of the Crown is responsible, in regard to which a Minister can be challenged at any time on the Floor of the House; and we really have had ample evidence of the facility with which, when it is thought that some interest such as this is threatened, Ministers can be held to account. I do not think that is an issue which really arises here. Ministers can always be challenged, and indeed, in regard to a very important class of case which this Bill does not touch—the case of defence works—that is the only effective remedy which the public has. I beg hon. Members who are concerned about this matter not to argue as if that remedy were something quite valueless.

Mr. Coleģate: My right hon. Friend now says that the decisions can be challenged. Surely the decisions of the Commission are final and the challenge to which he has referred will be too late.

Mr. Keelinģ: My right hon. Friend is dealing in this Bill, as regards commons,


with statutory rights. Does not his argument about the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament mean that he would like to abolish the statutory rights altogether?

Sir J. Anderson: Not at all. I am dealing with the question of administration in regard to a decision to purchase. Surely my hon. Friend does not suggest that, because the Government might be in a position to get a favourable decision from the Commission in a particular case, this House would not be entitled to challenge the propriety of the Minister's action if it were thought fit to do so. Of course, they would. [Interruption.] I am sorry hon. Members argue that the facilities normally available in the House are so inadequate.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely, it is part of my right hon. Friend's case that the War Works Commission should be independent and semi-judicial. In those circumstances how is it open to hon. Members to challenge something which it does?

Mr. W. J. Brown: And if it were in order for an hon. Member to challenge the decision of an outside statutory body, what practical prospects of effectively so doing are available in the House? I have had a notice of Motion on the Order Paper with over 100 signatures for the last two months and still I cannot get a Debate on the subject.

Sir J. Anderson: It is not for me to answer the point put by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), but in regard to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), I think I am right in saying that when a Minister had been responsible for action which hon. Members were free to challenge in the House, the fact that the Minister could get a decision from the tribunal in his favour would not necessarily be conclusive that he should act in accordance with that decision. Questions could still be put to him. [Interruption.] Hon. Members would not challenge the decision of the tribunal, but the action of the Minister. I am anxious to be fair with the Committee. I do not desire that there should be arbitrary action by Government Departments in regard to these matters. I do not adopt that sort of attitude.
I have listened very attentively to all the critical speeches that have been made and I am doing my best to address my-

self to the arguments that have been put forward. I hope I shall be allowed to do so. Hon. Members who have intervened have done so for the purpose of arguing and not of getting enlightenment. I pass to another point. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary devoted some time to explaining the complications that would he likely to arise in practice if, under this Bill, one procedure were set up for dealing with works on privately-owned lands and an entirely different procedure were set up for dealing with works on common land, or I am afraid I must add—because that was his argument—works affecting roadways, rights of way, easements and so forth. I think hon. Members who criticised my right hon. Friend failed altogether to do justice to his argument. It is not a question merely of concurrent remedies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said, although I think he meant alternative remedies.

Mr. W. J. Brown: He meant alternative, but he said concurrent.

Sir J. Anderson: It is not merely a question of alternative remedies but of overlapping remedies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, because there is quite a numbers of cases in which works are partly on private land and partly on public land. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who referred to certain works at Wisley. Those works are a very good illustration, because in that case the factory buildings are on private land, but there are runways involved, and the runways connected with the buildings are on common land. Obviously that is a matter which ought to be dealt with as a whole, and I do not see how under the Amendment it would be possible to deal with a transaction of that kind, involving acquisition of the factory buildings and the runways which are an essential part of the works, without getting into extreme complications, if the adjudication had to be by the Commission set up under the Bill in the case of the buildings and by the Provisional Order Procedure in the case of the runways on the common land. Therefore, it is quite clear to me that, both because this Amendment covers other matters besides works on common land in the ordinary sense of the term and because of the practical complication of works


which are partly on common land and partly on privately owned land, it would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment as it stands.
I take the view, for the reasons which I have given, that the procedure through the Commission should be an effective safeguard for all purposes, and I am bound to say that I would regret abandoning that procedure in favour of a different procedure, whatever might be said in favour of the alternative procedure in proper cases, solely in regard to the special case of commons. What I suggest to the Committee is that we should not accept this Amendment, that we should proceed to consider in due course all the various Amendments which we have not been in a position to discuss on this Amendment and which are designed to safeguard interests in respect of common lands and open spaces, and that when we have covered the ground and are in a position to look at the matter again as a whole, we should consider before the Report stage how we can best deal with the whole situation. I am ready to give the Committee an assurance that I will myself with an open mind—I do not regard the position of the Ministry or the War Cabinet or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being seriously involved an this controversy—look at the whole thing again in that way and see what is the best we can do. I recognise the strength of the feeling that exists on this matter. I would like to give the fullest reassurance to hon. Members that the interests with which they are concerned and in regard to which they have spoken with so much vigour and sincerity are not going to be in any way threatened or put in jeopardy by the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend put down an Amendment, which we can consider on Report, to see whether it carries out what he has suggested?

Sir H. Williams: May I make this suggestion? If the Amendment is withdrawn, the Chancellor might move that further consideration of the Clause be postponed until we have finished Clause 13, which is the last in this part of the Bill. That would mean that we could deal with the matter on the Committee stage instead of leaving it as a running

sore, between now and the Report stage, which is bound to be a long period of time. If often happens that consideration of a Clause is postponed in order that it may be dealt with later in Committee

Mr. Benson: I should like the Committee to realise what the Chancellor has done and what he has not done. He has, in effect, only promised that he will look at the matter again and, from some considerable experience, I know that a promise to look at a matter again does not carry the Committee very far. This House is not concerned with oil pipes which go under common land. We are not concerned with small entrances to deep shelters. What we are primarily concerned with is whether the common land of the country shall or shall not be diminished in area. I have no doubt that the Committee will be prepared to agree with the Government that you may possibly not be able to add additional land to a specific piece of common land but I am certain that, if the Chancellor will give a generous promise that as the result of this war common land shall not be decreased in area, he will cut away nine-tenths of the opposition to the Bill. He said himself that the amount of land involved in this is going to be very trivial, but he forgot that and, in trying to sway the Committee against the Amendment, he attempted to appeal to the lowest instincts and worst passions of hon. Members opposite by asking if they realise that quite a large amount of private land would be involved if substitutes were adopted. You cannot have it both ways. Either there is very little land involved or there is a great deal and, if a great deal was involved, the argument of hon. Members opposite might have some validity, but the Financial Secretary has destroyed his own argument and that of the Chancellor as well. I am prepared to go into the Lobby behind the right hon. Gentleman if he will give a promise that as the result of the Bill there shall be no diminution in the area of common land in the country.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I think the hon. Member is right in suggesting that the Chancellor has really made a very little concession because he is going into it again. He has had to give way to a certain extent because the Committee is unanimous. If we can adopt the suggestion of my hon.


Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir H. Williams), and have the matter discussed again while we are in Committee, that will be the best way out.

Sir Percy Harris: I should like to add my plea in reference to the postponement of the Clause. This is not a matter merely for the House. The whole nation is concerned. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises what a passionate attachment there is to the common land of England. I remember the same battle in my early youth. Now the public realise more than ever the vital importance of open spaces and, with the growth of cities, there is an increased demand for facilities for games and recreation. They are not prepared to part with or to divert an inch of public land for other purposes without a terrific struggle. I believe we should be betraying our trust to the people if we were satisfied with the really unconvincing speech of the right hon. Gentle-roan. He laboured long and hard to convince the Committee. He regards himself as the custodian of the public purse and I appreciate his angle of approach, but here is a case of vital principle and I beg of him to give way to the pressure of Members who represent the feeling of the public outside.

Mr. Coleģate: I should like to support the plea that has been made but at the same time we must really try to dispose of the extraordinary bogy that has been raised of what some people call "current" and some "alternative" remedies, What we are asking for is a supplementary provision. If the Amendment were adopted, in one case out of 100, or perhaps 1000, the Commission would say that their solution had to be confirmed by a Provisional Order of the House of Commons. That is not an unusual thing. That kind of administration is going on all over the world. It is going on in financial transactions. You agree with your banker or your creditor or your debtor but, if foreign currency is concerned, you have to obtain the sanction of the Treasury. The House and the public would then have the assurance that not a single common right of any kind could be interfered with without the consent of the House of Commons. I ask the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary not to bring up that bogy, because it is purely a bogy. Experienced administrators of the type likely to preside over

the Commission will have no difficulty in devising a simple procedure in which certain decisions will be stamped "subject to a Provisional Order being obtained."

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid I entirely disagree with what has just fallen from my hon. Friend, but I rose to say merely that I have consulted with my friends and I am advised that postponement of further consideration of the Clause would not in any way prejudice the consideration of further Amendments and, from my point of view, I see some advantage in the course suggested, because I want the Committee to consider as a whole the picture that we present in the Bill as we propose to amend it as far as commons are concerned. If the Amendment is not pressed now I am perfectly ready to agree to postponement of consideration of the Clause but that would, of course, mean that other amendments to this Clause dealing with quite other matters will also have to stand over.

Mr. A. Bevan: It means that the Amendment is not withdrawn but that everything on Clause 4 is in suspense and the Government must move that consideration be postponed.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The Amendment must, in' form, be withdrawn. That will not prejudice its being put down again but, in order to clear the decks, it must be withdrawn. It is not possible to postpone consideration of a Clause when an Amendment has been made to it.

Mr. Stokes: If it is withdrawn temporarily, does it follow that automatically it will be called when the matter comes up again?

The Chairman: It will be a matter for the Chair to decide whether it is called or not, but the Chair will naturally have regard to the obvious wish of the Committee and to what has been said to-day.

Sir W. Davison: Would not the best procedure be that further consideration of the Amendment 4 be adjourned?

The Chairman: That would not be in Order. The proper course is to postpone consideration of the whole Clause.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The political storm which raged at the week-end


has suddenly faded away, but hon. Members opposite apparently have been stimulated by the robust spirit of the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) yesterday said there was such a terrific feeling on this question because at one time 5,000,000 acres of common land were stolen from the people, but nobody suggested that that area should be given back. I want to put it to the Chancellor that the way to solve this question, which is a question of too little common land—

The Chairman: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I will not pursue it, but will suggest to the Chancellor that the only sane way to solve this question, and the way in which Members on this side would decide it, is to make all the land common land.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I am, of course, bound to accept your Ruling, Major Milner, with regard to the Amendment, and in these circumstances I would ask for your further guidance. Is it clear that I would be in Order in putting down, during the period while this Clause is postponed, an Amendment, either in the same terms or in similar terms, dealing with the subject matter of the present Amendment?

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member would be perfectly in Order in putting such an Amendment down.

Mr. Benson: I take it that if the Clause is postponed any Member can put down an Amendment to it?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Hutchinson: I take it also that it will be open to me to put down an Amendment at any time during the period when the Clause is postponed. I am obliged to you, Major Milner, for the assistance you have given, and, in the circumstances, I gladly assent to the course suggested and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered:
That consideration of Clause 4 be postponed until after consideration of Clause 13."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Works.)

Major York: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, leave out partly," and insert "mainly."
The purpose of the Amendment is to find out from the Government what is meant by the rather nebulous word "partly." Suppose that at some stage in the proceedings by any private firm which has obtained land under the Defence Regulations, the Government have supplied an infinitesimal sum—it might even be 10s—towards any expenses of the firm, Clause 5 would, in our contention, apply to the works and We land. I believe that that is not the intention of the Government and that what they are trying to do is to see that substantial sums of public money are not lost. Therefore, we are trying by the Amendment to provide that the only case to which the Clause should apply is where the expense of the Crown has been mainly concerned with the construction. I do not know that I could define "mainly," but I should say that it meant more than 50 per cent. If the Government were prepared to say that 50 per cent. was the sort of figure they had in mind, I am sure that my hon. Friends whose names are down to the Amendment would be prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Turton: We ought to be very careful about withdrawing an Amendment on an assurance that "partly" means more than 50 per cent. If we put in "mainly" it will clearly cover the greater part of the expenditure, and I hope that the Amendment will be insisted upon. It is clear that in the process of war.works a great many buildings and erections have been put up to which the Government have paid contributions by way of grants; and if the word "partly" remained it would enable the Government to claim that all the land on which the works were should be taken by a Government Department. The grants were given for expenditure which did not redound to the credit of the firm, but was for the nation. We are not asking the Government to give away much in asking for the word "mainly." I cannot think that the Financial Secretary will be able to devise a case where this would prevent him from being able to purchase a war works which is of such value to the nation that, in the public interest, it should be taken over. If we do not get the Amendment I fear that


some Government Department will try to take land that will be of use to them again and sell it to some other person. Wide powers are given under this Clause, and although the Government have got a case for some powers, we should be careful to see that they are not too wide.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I do not recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, although I am glad it has been put down because it raises an important point to which we have given great consideration, and which, in my mind, was one of the main reasons why it is vital that there should be a body such as the Commission set up. The Commission have to take into account all relevant circumstances, including the cost of the works. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that it would be wrong if Government Departments sought to exercise powers in this Bill because there had been some State-aided addition to works. It is not the Government's intention that the powers should be invoked in cases where the expenditure was trivial or small compared with the value of what we are dealing with. Another relevant point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is that in some cases—not all by any means—these works were useful for war purposes but would not be of use afterwards for the normal peace-time business that would be carried on there. I would point out that the works under paragraph (a) would not have any post-war value.
Agreeing, therefore, with the main principle of what has been put forward, I would not recommend the Committee to accept "mainly." One reason—and this is not the main reason—for leaving the Bill as it is is that I think it might raise a justiciable issue which would be tiresome to the people affected as well as to the Government. I suppose that "mainly" may mean 50.0001 per cent., or anything over one-half. Obviously, in a number of cases you would have a possible issue as to whether the Bill applied at all, the issue depending on a nice calculation as to the value or the cost of the works as originally there and the additions made to them. It would be unfortunate to introduce an Amendment which would raise a number of cases of doubt as to whether the Bill applied at all, which might be very difficult to solve.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewinģ: I agree with what the Attorney-General has said about the word "mainly" and with his definition of it, but would he substitute the word "substantially" instead of "mainly"?

The Attorney-General: That would, I think, be worse. I would not know what was meant by saying that it has been "substantially at the expense of the Crown." That might mean 30, 40, 60, even 70 per cent., and again these would be the issue to which I have referred. I want to emphasise to the Committee that if the Amendments were accepted the Bill would be left in a most unfortunate state. Of course it is not our intention that the Bill should be used where the Government contribution is small—

Mr. Manninģham-Baller: What is "small"?

The Attorney-General: That, again, is a question, and that is precisely why it is vital that there should be an independent Commission. It is one of the most relevant considerations of which they will have to take note, and that is why it is very important that there should be an assurance, in cases connected with some Government Department or other, that the powers should not be exercised in a manner contrary to the intention of the Bill. I think we are not helped by either "mainly" or "substantially." There would be times when it would be reasonable for the Commission to make a decision, though of course if they said "No" that would be an end to it. Suppose a rich corporation had existing works of a substantial value and the Government added to those works something which cost, say, £100,000 or £200,000. It might be less than 5o per cent. of the whole. Those works might be extremely useful to that company in its post-war business. Would it be necessarily unreasonable for the Government to say that as they have added to those works at the cost of the taxpayers they should have power to acquire the whole, but would be perfectly content to leave it in their hands if they would make an arrangement which is reasonable having regard to the value of the works? There are special words in Clause II which entitle the Commission to consider that. That is one of the reasons


why we are having a Commission with power to take into account all relevant considerations. I would advise the Committee not to accept the word "mainly." For one thing it would raise a justiciable issue which might make the matter very complicated and costly, and also, there would be cases where the Crown would be justified in invoking powers where the contribution has been less than 50 per cent.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I appreciate the difficulty of putting into this Clause a word of precision which will be satisfactory, but I am not impressed by the arguments put forward by the Attorney-General in support of the Clause in its present form. In the first place his argument seemed to be that it really does not matter what words appear in Clause 5, Sub-section (1), because there is a Commission of independent men who would take into account all the relevant factors. I do not feel very satisfied with that. This Clause is the foundation stone for the whole machinery of public acquisition by a Government Department. It is an argument that might be applied to any Amendment to any part of this Bill to say that there is the Commission. On the second argument I think he rather "let the cat out of the bag." He only dealt with the case where part of the expenditure had been paid by a Government Department. He said: "Suppose a case where the extension of a big factory cost £200,000 of Government money. If we have this word 'partly' we shall be able to say to the big corporations, 'Unless you pay us for this £200,000 extension we shall, under this Act, have the power to acquire the whole of your undertaking'." That is the argument used where the part expenditure is by a Government Department. If the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York) happened to contribute £1 to the execution or the construction of Government war works where he had no interest or only a limited interest in the land, the words in this Clause would give the Minister power to exercise the same sort of pressure as upon the big corporations. It seems to me quite wrong and I must say I do not feel in the east content to leave it to the Commission. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that real justice would be secured in the majority of cases by the omission of the words

"wholly or party" if he finds any real difficulty about "mainly." It would not really be for the court to determine whether the expenditure had been mainly at the expense of the Crown, because the Commission should be well able to do that. Surely one could incorporate a form of words which left it to that independent tribunal, the Commission, to decide whether expenditure had been mainly for the Crown and remove that issue from the courts. It seems to me that the word "mainly" is much more suitable in this case than the word "partly."

Major York: I feel a little confused by the Attorney-General, because I think he has shown the difficulty of trying to narrow down the interpretation of this part of the Sub-section. I think that what is really at the back of our minds more than anything else is the fact that a person completely uninterested in the land is to be given certain rights by the Government merely for the reason that certain sums of Government money had been spent on the works. It is valueless for me as a layman to try to argue with the Attorney-General, but he has not satisfied me, and at a later stage I hope we shall be able to show our desires rather more strongly than we can perhaps at the present time. If he will consider the question of leaving it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manninģham-Buller) has suggested, that will satisfy me.

Mr. Turton: I hope the Attorney-General will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). The answer of the Attorney-General really was most unsatisfactory. What it really came to in a condensed form was: "I require this for the purpose of blackmail in certain cases." I think there is a grave danger in this. I know the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General and the Financial Secretary is most honourable, and that they have no idea of blackmail, but I am not so sure of some Government Departments, and I am far from sure of other persons who might be involved in this matter. The main point here is that we cover (a) all questions in cases of Government grants and (b) covers those cases where a large corporation has made a contribution to the cost of the extension of a small firm's pre-


mises for war work. That has happened in many factories up and down this country. The small men who were doing war work have, owing to a working arrangement for munitions, received contributions from the larger firms in connection with their work. If we leave in this word "partly" it will enable the larger firms to have a stranglehold on the small man. I suggest that this matter should be reconsideded by the Attorney-General. I am not wedded to the word "mainly"—

Mr. MeKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Postpone the Clause.

Mr. Turton: I will leave that suggestion to come from those benches. As I said, I am not wedded to the word "mainly." I suggest that the Attorney-General or the Chancellor should get up and say that this matter will be reconsidered and another form of words put in to make it quite clear that Clause 5 cannot be used for blackmail purposes.

Mr. Orr-Ewinģ: I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the wording of this Clause. His explanation seemed to me to give the words an extremely alarming meaning. We can make quite clear what is the intention of the Government only by using a form of words which will show that it is not their intention that these powers should be used for any blackmailing purposes.

6.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I must say that I cannot hold out any hope. My right hon. Friends and I have given this matter a great deal of consideration. We did appreciate and anticipate the type of point which has been made by the mover and seconder of this Amendment. That is the reason why I pointed out the difficulty of the use of this word "mainly." When we come to Clause ii it will be seen we have put in words which we hope are wide, and will give guidance to insure that purchases are not sanctioned, except in proper cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) used the word "blackmail." I cannot regard the recovery for taxpayers of the fair value of works which have been erected at their expense, and which are afterwards to be used for profit, as blackmail. It seems to me common justice to the taxpayers. I should be deceiving the Committee if I said that I thought it was

possible to find some word other than "mainly," which would meet the point which we both desire to meet. I believe there must be the wide power to meet perfectly proper cases, though I agree with my hon. Friend, of course, that if it can be shown that only limited power is needed, and there are no cases in which it is required to go beyond the limits set, the correct thing to do is to put it in the Clause, and not leave it to the Commission. I have thought a great deal about this problem, but if these wider powers are needed for some perfectly proper and substantial cases, then the remedy must be to set up, as we have done, an independent body to see that a Department does not abuse the power by seeking to say: "We ought to be able to purchase" when the money spent by them or somebody else is unsubstantial, and it is oppressive and wrong to seek to exercise the powers under the Bill.

Mr. Turton: In my opinion the view too often exhibited in this Bill is one of blackmail. That is not to say I think the Crown should not seek to recover the expense of works put on the land, but that can be done perfectly well. We are putting down Amendments, suggesting that the correct procedure is that whoever is the owner of the land, be he private individual, firm, local authority or municipal corporation, when the Government have spent money on the land, and when the owners recover that land, should pay to the Government the value of those works. That is what is sought in numbers of Amendments, and I am surprised that the Chancellor did not draft his Bill on those lines. What we object to is their taking what purports to be the right to acquire land without any intention of acquiring it, in order to frighten the owner into giving money to the Crown. I suggest that that is an improper method of drafting Bills. If it is the Attorney-General's intention to use those methods I shall still continue to describe them as "blackmail."

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, leave out from "Crown," to "and," in line 5.
The previous Amendment was directed to narrowing the terms of this Bill to doing what was stated to be its purpose, and not to give wide and discretionary powers which would enable things to be


done far beyond what this House would be disposed to approve. But that Amendment was directed to narrowing those powers in so far as they related to the Crown. In this Clause these very exceptional and wide powers are not confined to cases where there has been expenditure of public moneys upon land, but are extended to other persons, and as the Clause now stands, and leaving out the words which are not relevant to my purpose now, where there are Government war works on the land
… the power of acquisition shall be exercisable if those works were constructed …partly at the expense of… some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land…
There may be a case in which two subjects of the Crown have shared in the cost of some war works, and if, in the opinion of a Minister, it is desirable, then one person who has made a contribution towards the cost of Government war works on somebody else's land, will be entitled to approach the Minister, and the Minister may seek to exercise these quite exceptional powers of compulsory acquisition in the interests of one subject of the Crown as opposed to another.
The House gave a Second Reading to this Bill chiefly in order to ensure that where Government money had been expended it should be possible for the taxpayer to be reasonably reimbursed for the expenditure. Here we have the whole purpose of the Bill extended to cases in which no public money is involved at all, and where it is merely a matter between two subjects of the Crown. I feel that the Government are under an obligation to justify the granting by this House of powers of that very extensive kind. I therefore move to omit the words which extend so greatly the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: On a point of Order. Would it be convenient to the Committee, Mr. Williams, to consider with this Amendment the Amendment standing in my name—in page 3, line 4, after the first "or," insert, "by and at the expense of?" After hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, it seems to me that both Amendments cover a similar field in some respects.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee agree I think that will be very reasonable.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I find myself unable to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak with regard to his Amendment, because it seems to me that where a private company, or a big corporation, or a company created by the Crown for the construction of war works, has spent a large sum in building a factory on some other person's land, much the same arguments apply in regard to that corporation as apply with regard to the recovery of the money of the State from the land-owner. Therefore, I am not entirely with my hon. Friend about the point he has made, but there must be some limitation in this Clause; because, as it now stands, as I understand it, if any bank which has no interest in the land can be shown to have put up some money for a corporation and the corporation has spent money on putting up war works, then the Crown will have the power of acquisition. I am not quite sure what the words
…at the expense of the Crown or some other person …
cover. Do they cover the case in which a grant is made specifically for the construction of works, or is it sufficient if it can be shown that some money borrowed from a bank, or the Government, has been used by the corporation for the construction of those works? Is that enough to entitle the Crown to seek to acquire under this Clause? The object of the Amendment I desire to move is to exclude the Crown's right to acquire where the expenditure has been by someone other than the Crown and someone who has done nothing about the construction of the works. Those words of limitation are desirable. If the other person has incurred the expense, and done the construction, then the Government will have the right of acquisition, but only then.

Major York: I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). One of the objectionable features of this Bill is this right that the Government are taking to acquire compulsorily land from one man and sell it to another. Further than that, it is taking the laws of property of this country and setting them at naught, and the only excuse is the saving of a few pence for the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend is grumbling at my words, but he has just refused an Amendment of mine by which I could have helped him


considerably. I feel that although this is not the most objectionable feature, it is one of the most objectionable in the Bill. I can imagine cases in which a small garage may have been requisitioned, and some larger firm has come along and taken over that requisition, perhaps as part of a dispersal scheme, has enlarged that man's garage, perhaps with some grant from the Crown. That small man will lose all his rights in his property, he will lose his livelihood and his job. All he will get is the compensation as decided under the Defence Act, 1939, at 1939 prices.

Mr. McKinlay: It is not a widow this time.

Major York: It is conceivable he might be a widower. On the Second Reading I mentioned certain principles which I desired the Chancellor to follow. The second of them, which crops up in the Bill, the Chancellor refused to follow. I feel that that is very sad. I know that the Bill arises out of war conditions which produced some unfortunate effects, but one of them, which we should try to prevent, is the alteration of the law of property. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this Amendment as strongly as possible.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I would first express a little surprise at the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) that the words in the Clause which he particularly wishes to omit were put in in order to save money for the taxpayer. That is not the case, of course. We have just discussed an Amendment, to which the Attorney-General replied, where taxpayers money was involved. The object of putting in the words:
constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the Crown or some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land",
is to attain common justice and equity, as between one citizen and another.

Major York: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Peake: May I make my point? To be constantly interrupted is disturbing, and it is much better to allow me to make my speech. What happened in the state of emergency was that many things had to be done in very great haste. We were

in very severe need of aircraft early in the war, for example, and the Government said to the aircraft manufacturer: "You have to extend your works immediately. We will requisition the land." The aircraft manufacturer said: "All right. We will put up the extension of plant." The ordinary law of the land is that when a requisition comes to an end the property standing on the de-requisitioned land falls in to the owner of the land. It would be the greatest injustice towards an aircraft manufacturer who had spent large sums of money on extending his factories, if those factories passed, at the end of requisitioning, to a person who was simply the owner of the land, and who had made no contribution of any kind to the expense of extending the factories. The object of the words which I have read out is to safeguard the position of such people. That is why the words are included in the Clause.
The position of the small man, such as the small garage proprietor, has been referred to. In many cases, expensive machine tools will have been affixed to the site of the garage. It would be quite wrong that they should pass back to whoever owned the land before the requisitioning took place. The position is safeguarded perfectly by the Bill. If hon. Members will look at Clause 10, they will see that the purpose of acquisition in these cases is to preserve value. The Commission can make an additional recommendation, dependent upon an offer by the owner of the land to pay a sum of money in order to acquire assets which have been placed upon his land. Therefore, the garage proprietor who has been brought into the picture can come forward, if valuable extensions or machine tools have been placed in his garage and if he wants to preserve his interest in the land and in the business, with an offer to the Commission of a reasonable sum of money to acquire the improvements which have been made to his property.

Commander Galbraith: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "affixed to the land"?

Mr. Peake: Yes, the tools I referred to were those which have been affixed to the land, in which case they form part of the realty. There are many tools which have been put into factories and which in fact form part of the land, from a technical and legal point of view, under the Bill.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is rather different. When I first read it I confess I had some difficulty in understanding it. The effect of his Amendment, as I read it, would be that the persons to whom I have been speaking—people who have spent money on requisitioned land, not being the Crown, such as an aircraft manufacturer —would find that nothing could be done to safeguard their interests unless the whole of the money had been put up by, let us say, an aircraft manufacturer. The effect of the Amendment is that the words "wholly or partly" which we have just been discussing would not apply to "some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land."

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to give way for a moment? I want to try to get this matter quite clear. I thought I had made it clear before. If my Amendment were made, the Sub-section would read:
if those works were constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the Crown"—
meaning the whole thing—
or by and at the expense of some other person.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend's Amendment would draw a distinction between cases where works were constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the Crown, and works constructed, as the Clause would go on to read,
by and at the expense of some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land.
That is to say, the word "partly" would not apply where the works had been constructed by those other persons. That also would produce an unjust position. There might be cases, and I am sure there are, where part of the money for the improvements on requisitioned land has been put up by the owner of neighbouring land and part by the owner of the requisitioned land. I can assure my hon. Friend that the only purpose we have in putting these words in is to attain equity and justice between one citizen and another. It is not a matter in which there is any money to be saved for the taxpayer and the Exchequer. All we want to see is equity achieved. Clause 10, which refers to additional recommendations by the Commission, will enable people whose property has been improved

by other people who have spent money on it, to make an offer in money in order to retain their interest in the property concerned. I hope that this explanation is not too obscure and that my hon. Friends will not press their Amendments.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I would like to add a further word, because I am afraid that what I said on my Amendment has been completely misunderstood. The Amendment was not on the point of "wholly or partly" or anything to do with it. The whole point was to ensure that the words "some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land" did not cover the case where money had been advanced to the aircraft manufacturer by the bank, or some other individual. As I read the terms of the Clause, if any third party liked to loan money to an aircraft manufacturer and it was used in the construction of Government war works, there would be this power of acquisition. I thought I had made it clear, but apparently I have not, that the object of the insertion of the word "by" was to ensure that the person whose interest is to be protected by the Clause was the individual who footed the Bill and constructed the works, and not someone one stage further back who had advanced the money. The Financial Secretary has not dealt with that point.

Mr. Peake: I think I can make it clear to my hon. Friend. He thinks that the words in the Clause may in some way enable banks to instigate Government Departments to acquire property on their behalf; but I can assure my hon. Friend that if he built a house by means of obtaining a loan from his bankers, the house would not have been erected at the expense of Lloyds Bank or the Midland Bank, or whichever it might be, but at the expense of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Turton: After the explanation given by my right hon. Friend, what does appear is that the Sub-section has been very badly drafted. I would put this hypothesis to the Government: Suppose you had two garages, both owned, if you like, by widowers. In one case, a big firm, say Nuffields, have requisitioned the garage for war purposes and have made certain additions. We come now to the stage of de-requisitioning. Garage A, which has been helped by Nuffields, is all right. Their garage cannot be


taken over by the Crown or by Nuffields. In the case of widower B, the Crown, although they have not spent one penny on the garage, can by the wording of the Clause acquire the land—either the Crown or Messrs. Nuffield. Surely that is very wrong. Why should the Crown be able to take land on which they have not spent one penny, when all the money is put up by a private firm? I am not arguing against the merits, as they were put by the Financial Secretary, but against the drafting of the Clause. I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me to insist that when we are dealing with private property and with the property of business men in this country, we should see that the words are closely drawn, so that no Government Department can misuse power so conferred. As the Clause is drafted, I believe the power can be misused. If anybody can tell me that widower B could not have his garage bought or acquired compulsorily by the Crown under this Clause I am prepared not to prosecute the point.
On one matter I would press the Government. I do not want the Attorney-General to get up and say: "This will be perfectly all right. It is a point of difficulty with which the Commission is meant to deal." We have had that too often, although we have not been discussing the Bill very long. The Government have said: "There will be no injustice from this Commission; we have got some very good names and that will be enough." That is the wrong way of doing it. We must see that the Bill is properly drafted so that injustice cannot possibly occur. The better way would be to omit the words: "or some other person having no interest." If there is a case for power being given to some other person, let us have a separate Clause for that purpose. To mix up the powers given to the Crown, with powers given to some other person, will lead to possible injustice in this case. I ask the Government to reconsider this matter.

Sir John Mellor: I am rather inclined to agree with the Financial Secretary on this point, but I would ask for further information. My right hon. Friend referred to firms who had extended their premises by building on requisitioned land, presumably at the request of some Ministry. Surely at the tithe before proceeding to spend the

firm's money on that construction, the people concerned obtained some guarantee from the Ministry that they would be reimbursed for the cost? Of course, that cuts both ways, but we ought to know how things stand. Is it not really the purpose of these words to secure that the Crown is covered in the event of their having to pay out, under such a guarantee?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), I might point out what happened in the stress of the dangerous years when these things were done. People were asked to extend their factories. The land was requisitioned and the people were told: "We will see that you don't suffer in the long run."
6.45 p.m.
That means either that the Government must be in a position to acquire the requisitioned land, or that they must pay out money to an aircraft manufacturer, who then loses an extension to his factory to some quite undeserving person to whom it would fall on the termination of the requisition. There are other analogous cases where people, pressed by the Government, erected large extensions to their factories and where the land was in the possession of the factory owner but where the remaining lease was so short that, in the ordinary way of business prudence, nobody would have gone in for building an extensive structure on it. That is another type of case where these words are necessary, in order that private interests may be adequately and justly dealt with.

Mr. Orr-Ewinģ: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who pressed for the redrafting of the entire Clause. The words we are debating now are extremely difficult to understand. I am not sure which is the more obscure, the Clause, or the explanation given by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. In any event, it has been said that the words, as they stand, have been inserted to protect one citizen against another but nobody could possibly understand the wording of the Clause at present. Although I have the greatest possible confidence in my right hon. Friends, I hope that at some future time they will be able to express their intention in clearer form.

Major York: I tried to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but he would not give way to me, as I did to him. I want to put a hypothetical question, purely for information, about the garage proprietor, with whom he dealt so cavalierly. Suppose the garage had been taken over, on requisitioning, by some large engineering firm, making some such thing as tanks or aeroplanes. The tools in that garage would be quite worthless, yet the engineering firm could come along, under the Clause, and say, "We will pay back the Government for the, tools they supplied to us." They could then set up a garage, with petrol pumps and all other paraphernalia, on that spot, and, while the garage proprietor could be given compensation, at 1939 prices, they could take his business away from him, lock, stock, and barrel.

Mr. Peake: On this question of keeping count of interruptions and giving way, I may say that I am well down so far on the day. Under this Clause, no initiative can be taken by one business man against another: the initiative must come from the requisitioning Department. The initiative rests in each case with the Crown; so there can be no question of a big man using this Clause to squeeze a little man. That is one safeguard. The second is that all these cases, which will be cases of preserving value, may under the Clause he brought by an objection to the Commission, and the decision of the Commission in all cases will be final. There are, as I pointed out, the conditions in Clause 10, which are rather elaborate, for provisional recommendations by the Commission where somebody's property has been improved, perhaps by the installation of a bathroom or something of that sort. If that somebody makes a reasonable offer in respect of the improvement, the Commission will reject the application for the acquisition of the property, on payment being made for the improvement which has been carried out by some other person.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "interest," insert:
being less than a lease with twenty-one years unexpired at the commencement of this Act.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed this Amendment with my later Amendment, to insert similar words in line 10.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The second Amendment would be consequential on the first.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I am still optimistic. I am optimistic about being able to explain this matter, and make it clear, in a few words. The words with which we are concerned are:
or some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land.
These words are as vague as the word "partly." Such an interest would extend from a tenancy for a week to a lease for 99 years, or even longer. The object of this Amendment is to define, or put a limit, on a limited interest. It seems to me that there is no case for giving a right of acquisition over land on which an extension of Government war works has been done by a person having a limited interest in that land, if the person who has the limited interest is going to have at least 21 years more to occupy the land. I am not much concerned with whether the period should be 21 years or longer, but there should be some limit on the extensiveness of the limited interest which will give the right of acquisition. The learned Attorney-General has spoken about the desirability of not taking wider powers than are required. Here is an opportunity of carrying out that admirable object, and putting a limit to this extremely vague and, in my view, ill-drafted provision.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has adopted an extraordinary attitude towards his Amendment. He puts down 21 years, and then says that he is not particularly interested in whether it is 21 years or not. Of course, we have considered this problem, which is one that leaps to the eye. You want to provide for people with a limited interest. Is it satisfactory to draw a definite line after a certain number of years? We came to the conclusion that it was not. My hon. Friend says that you ought to draw a line; but he has so little confidence in the line he has drawn that he says that perhaps the period ought to be longer. I agree that if a man has a lease for 99 years, you may say that, even if he has put up the most substantial building, he would have done that quite apart from any war needs. The point we are seeking to deal with here, as was explained by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, is that, under the pressure of war, those


who were making munitions of one kind or another were urged to build or extend their factories. In some cases, they extended them on land which the Crown requisitioned for them, and in which they had no interest. In other cases, they put up substantial works on land in which they had some interest, but so short an interest that no prudent man would have put up works without negotiating for a greater interest. That is the problem, and my right hon. Friend fully appreciates it.
Is it necessary to draw a line? My hon. Friend suggests 21 years. In many cases that would be too short. The life of buildings to-day is a good deal more than 21 years. There would be many cases where a man would not erect a permanent concrete structure, or whatever it was made of, on land where he had only a 21 years' interest. He may have been urged, in the interests of the war, to do so. We ought to safeguard him by taking power to purchase the land, including, of course, the landlord's interest, and seeing that he gets a return for his money. We think, therefore, that 21 years is too short. Should you make the period 30, 40, 50, or 60 years? Let me express my most emphatic disagreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said about references to the Commission, of which he complains. Of course, if the problem allowed you to draw the Bill narrowly enough so that there could be no abuse of the powers given under it, there would be no need for a Commission. It is because my right hon. Friend realised that the vast and inchoate and chaotic nature of this problem compelled him to ask the House for powers which might be, so far as their legal scope was concerned, capable of abuse, that he has put up the independent Commission. I am quite unrepentant about referring, and continuing to refer, to the Commission, because at every stage, in the chaotic conditions which were necessary to win the war, powers were necessary which had to be put in vague terms.
I think my hon. Friend would agree with me—we agree about a lot of things —that it is probably rather difficult to say whether it should be 30, 40, 50 or 60 years. We felt that, here again, it depends upon the nature of what has been put up. If what the man has put up is simply a

temporary structure, 21 years is too long. Anybody may erect a garden shed on property in which he had only a seven years' lease. If the thing were put up only for the war, and would come down in a year or two, the period would be too long. On the other hand, for the big modern concrete factory, 21 years is too short. I think we had better leave it. Suppose a case comes before the Commission where the Crown claims the right to purchase land, because the man who occupies it has only a limited interest. The Commission may say, "He has a 60 years' lease. How can you say you are justified in taking it? "For the reasons I have given, I think it is better to leave the Bill in its present form.

7.0 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I would not have intervened had the Attorney-General not attacked so virulently my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). This Amendment was not put down as gospel. It was put down in order to see whether the Government had thought about it. The Attorney-General said: "Of course we have thought about it." Surely there is no "of course" about it. One has only to read the Bill to see how much doubt there is as to whether the Government have thought about it. Now that the learned Attorney-General has said he has thought about it, and has stated why the words in the Bill are preferable and why the Amendment is not necessary, I am content, but I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not attack my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry for attempting to make this Bill more clear, definite, precise and understandable.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not altogether share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend. I became exceedingly interested when the Attorney-General so boldly pursued the question whether the definition was necessary. As I listened to him I felt that he himself did not know what the answer was. As I interpret it, a definition or decision as to what is a limited interest has to be taken sooner or later in every case, but it would not be feasible for this Committee to take that decision, and therefore the poor wretched Commission should do it. I feel great sympathy for this Commission. They will have a very difficult


time in any event, and if we continue to burden them with these exceedingly hypothetical and wide cases without giving them any guidance whatsoever, they will come to be regarded by appellants to the Commission as people who cannot make up their own minds and who cannot follow their own precedents.
Even if the wording of my hon. Friend's Amendment is not acceptable to the Government, we should accept the responsibility of attempting to give to the Commission some guidance as to what is a limited interest. As I understood it, the Attorney-General sought to differentiate between a temporary and a permanent structure. Possibly there is some line which could be followed up, but I feel very strongly that if we throw this thing into the melting pot it will result only in bringing discredit upon the decisions of the Commission. We are all very anxious that everyone should regard this Commission as producing the best possible results and giving the best possible decisions. I believe we are putting it into an impossible position in cases like this, so that its decisions cannot possibly be recognised as fair in every case and it cannot be regarded as a real authority for assessment of values in this connection.

Mr. Benson: I cannot see what Amendment this Clause requires. We are all agreed that no structure or value shall revert immediately to the landlord after the war. There is no dispute about that. An interested party who has erected a building must be protected against immediate reversion. I do not think there is any distinction between the reversion of values, 20, 30 or 40 years hence. If a landlord has no right to the immediate reversion he has no right to the reversion of a residual value at some future time. There is no reason whatever why the landlord's interest should be treated differently in cases of a limited interest than in cases of any other interest. The Attorney-General referred to the case of a temporary building, but if a temporary building is erected on land on which the lease is comparatively short there is no reversion of values if the building is of no value when the lease ends. This Clause in itself is perfectly consistent with the principle that has been accepted and, so far as I can see, requires no amendment whatever.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I rise to support this Amendment and I am driven to do so by what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks). I would like the Attorney-General to clear up this point, because reference was made to placing on the Commissioners the onus of deciding. Surely, in relation to these words with which we have been dealing, that is not so. They concern property with which the Commission will have to deal, and there is no question of the Commission deciding whether there is a limited interest or not. Those words go to jurisdiction. They are merely words of definition of the kind of property which is affected by this Clause, and therefore it is essential there should be some clear definition of what the property is. Once a person has no interest, surely the property comes within the scope of that which can be acquired and it does not matter whether it is a substantial interest or a minor interest. Surely, for that reason, it is necessary to have some clear definition of what property is affected.

Sir J. Lamb: When lawyers differ it is dangerous for a layman to interfere, but everyone seems to condemn the Amendment and support the Government, and I desire to presume to support the Government. I believe the intention of those who put forward the Amendment is to do justice to those concerned. Justice will depend upon the conditions which exist; the conditions are not known to-day. We cannot put down words to meet conditions of which we are not aware. I am not fond of Commissions, but Commissions are set up simply because it is impossible to put in a Bill words which would be flexible enough to suit such varied conditions. A lawyer would say: "I am dealing entirely with what is in the Bill and not with the intention of anybody who was discussing the Bill." Therefore, in my opinion, this matter should be settled by the Commission.

The Attorney-General: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) did not regard my comparatively mild debating methods as an attack upon him. He is quite right in this sense, that if a factory owner has erected works on land and has an interest in that land, he does as a matter of juris-


diction come within the Bill. But why it is impossible to give guidance to the Commission by inserting some definite limit is because the reasonableness of the exercise of those powers must depend in each case on the nature and probable life of the works which the factory owner has set up. For instance, supposing a factory owner, being urged to make more aircraft, or whatever it may be, has erected on land on which he has a lease for six years sheds which are clearly of a temporary character, which will rot and be taken down and which could never last more than six years, it would be quite unreasonable to seek to invoke the powers of the Bill to purchase in that case. There would be no value to preserve in such a case. That has shown my hon. Friend why one cannot draw a line. If unreasonable use is made of it, then it is for the Commission to deal with.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: I make no apology for putting down this Amendment because if it did not meet with Government approval I would have been willing to accept some modification of it. On this occasion I am glad to say that I am entirely satisfied with the explanation of the Attorney-General. I think it is a difficult problem, and the Debate has probably clarified the matter throughout the country as well as throughout the Committee. For those reasons I desire to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

General Sir Georģe Jeffreys: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The effect of that paragraph is that power of acquisition may be exercisable if, in the opinion of the Minister, the value of any works ought by that acquisition to be preserved for the Crown or any person other than the owners. I desire to draw attention to the word "value." I would say at once that the value is by no means necessarily equivalent to the cost of those works. In very many cases there have been carried out at very considerable cost to the Government works sometimes of a very substantial nature, very often ill and hastily planned in the emergency which prevailed and which are in every sense white elephants when disused. Under this Clause, it does seem to me, and this is the object of my Amendment. that the Government may attempt to cut their losses and avoid payment of

compensation, or, alternatively, of rehabilitation, by claiming as the value of the work the original cost to the Government.
7.15 p.m.
I would venture to give some illustrations of what I mean. There might be, for instance, the case of runways on disused aerodromes, very likely, almost certainly, very expensive in construction. There might be a case of lorry standings, also made of concrete and possibly taking up land which might be very good agricultural land. There are other forms of concrete erections. I have particularly in mind a case in my own constituency in which a number of concrete erections, lorry standings and so forth, were put up, no doubt at great expense, on some exceedingly good agricultural land which happened to be favourably situated for the preparation and concentration of troops and vehicles for D-Day. These lorry standings and other concrete works are already disused, and, in one case at any rate, the War Office sent a detachment of pioneers to have them removed. But the pioneers, possibly not very well supervised, after spending a considerable time in endeavouring to remove these various concrete erections and constructions, ceased the work and left enormous blocks of concrete, which could not be moved except by considerable power, lying about on this unfortunate farmer's land.
There has been a great deal of money spent by the Government, on these and similar constructions which may be abandoned after the war, and it seems to me that, under paragraph (a), it might be possible to claim that the cost of these works was the value of them. It was, I think, the Air Ministry, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) as "the villain of the piece," which contemplated the acquisition of land under the Compensation Defence Act, sooner than pay for the removal of runways or pay compensation for them, because they knew the difficulty and the cost of removing them. I suggest that, if paragraph (a) is left out, it will not in any way vitiate the general sense of Clause 5, because the following paragraph gives the right to acquire land in order to use any of the works, which then or thereafter by the acquision of land ought to be preserved or secured for the Crown. It seems to me that the


right to use being secured for the Crown, meets the case quite adequately, and that the value of any of the work, which must be a matter of estimate and may be a matter in which value may be made to correspond with cost, need not be preserved for the Crown. If it is unnecessary, and I suggest that it very often is, that it should be preserved for the Crown, it is still more unnecessary that it should be preserved for some other persons having no interest, or a limited interest, in the land. This does appear to be an endeavour by the Government to cut their losses by saving them from liability to pay compensation or rehabilitate, and I hope this paragraph, which does not seem to me to affect the general purposes of the Clause in any way, may be left out.

Mr. Turton: I hope the Chancellor will give an explanation of paragraph (a), which is the cause of a good deal of consternation in the country. I would put the case which is chiefly worrying people. It is that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) of the large number—800, I think—of airfields in this country, which are on the best agricultural land, and all of which, I should think, are unlikely to be required after the war. There was no desire, when we put down this Amendment, to secure for some other persons a thing that will be of value to them, but value is a very difficult thing to estimate. What may be of great value to me, may be of little value to another hon. Member; it depends on one's way of looking at it. From the point of view of the country, in my view, the land of these aerodromes, when they are not being used for either military or civil aviation, is of more value for agriculture than for any other purpose.
The cost of runway construction was, I believe, 25s. per square yard, which means that, on the average airfield, the cost of the runways has been £72,500. It is very difficult for the agricultural community to argue before the Commission that the Government should not purchase this agricultural land under this Clause, because it has no value, because, when the Government have spent £72,500 on an aerodrome, it may well be that they will try to buy it. If they bought it for use for defence purposes, or for civil aviation, no hon. Member in this Committee, save one who has an Amendment which has not

been called, would quarrel with that. Now the Committee will ask why it is suggested that the Government will try to purchase the runway land and for what purpose they will do so. I am afraid the purpose is that of trying to save a little money. It will be cheaper to the Government to purchase this land, which they will be able to do under the Compensation (Defence) Act, on the 1939 value, than to see that it goes back to agriculture, in which case they would have to put it back into the state in which it was before they came along. It is, undoubtedly, going to cost a great deal to restore this concrete-encased land to agriculture, but its value to the community as agricultural land is, in my submission, far greater than the cost of restoring it. After all, for generations money has been spent on draining it and getting it to a state of natural fertility in which it could be of great value to the people of this country for the supply of food.
If this paragraph is to be used as an economy measure for securing that the land is not rehabilitated, but is acquired by a Government Department and then left derelict, I think we are committing a grave crime. I do not know what the Government mean by "the value of any of the work." Value at what date? The date when they actually tried to acquire the land? The date of requisition? The date when the war ends, or the date two years after the war is ended? I think we want to be absolutely clear on this point. I am afraid of paragraph (a). I should have thought the Government had all the power they required in paragraph (b) which gives them the right to acquire any land, on which they have spent money, if they want it, and to use it for any purpose. I should have thought the correct way of dealing with paragraph (a) was by arranging that, where the Government did something of value, on land which did not belong to them but was requisitioned, then they ought to get due compensation from the owner of that land when it was de-requisitioned. That seems to me to be a fair way of dealing with this matter. Those who have seen the billets of different units in this war, will realise how much money has been spent on providing them and the lavish expenditure on concrete and on different kinds of hutments. I am not arguing that it has been unnecessary in all cases, though I know


there have been many cases of extravagance. I mentioned during the Second Reading Debate billets in my constituency where £30,000 had been spent, and I regarded that as extravagant.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would warn the hon. Member of the great danger of his speech wandering far beyond the borders of the present Amendment.

Mr. Turton: Do I gather, Mr. Williams, that I am not allowed to repeat the illustration which I gave on Second Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman: I was warning the hon. Gentleman, because I think his speech was getting rather near to a Second Reading speech.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I understand that the Subsection deals with the specific grounds upon which the Government can acquire land. Is it against the Rules of Order for me to allude to, or to repeat, arguments used on Second Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman: I particularly did not refer in detail to' the speech of the hon. Member, but I was warning him that there does come a time on the Committee stage when any hon. Member may, quite accidentally, get into an argument which comes very dangerously near repetition. I did not say that it was repetition but that it was dangerously near it, and I thought it was fair to warn the hon. Member.

Mr. Turton: I will do my best to obey your Ruling, Mr. Williams, although I confess I am not certain now in what way I am offending against it. If there is a village like the one in my constituency where £30,000 has been spent on billets, are we going to say that there is not value in those works? They are valuable for war purposes and for the housing of soldiers. They are valuable in the form that, if they were transferred from where they are at the top of a hill 1000 feet high and put in Aldershot, they would be of value, but in my constituency in that particular place they are of no value whatever to the owners. I do not want to delay the proceedings on this paragraph but I wanted to hear an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he means. I am ready to sit down if the right hon. Gentleman will give an explanation, and then, if it is not clear, I can ask a question later.

What does the Chancellor mean by these words and will he pay particular attention to the case of derelict aerodromes?

Sir J. Anderson: I hope my hon. Friend does not think it discourteous of me to show a little impatience, because the point of his criticism has been clear to me for some time. I can, perhaps, best satisfy hon. Members who have doubt and difficulty about this particular provision, if I indicate, in the first place, the kind of case which it is primarily designed to cover. We have heard a great deal about aerodromes and derelict aerodromes, and the cost of concrete works and whether there is going to be a clear distinction between original cost and value. All of that was really beside the mark. The typical case with which we are concerned here is one of which there are examples all over the country. It is the case of factories constructed at great expense for war purposes for which they are not going to be required in the future, the use of which the Government will not wish to control in the future, which are of very substantial value to the community, and which it is desired to make over for purposes of peace-time production to suitable firms or business undertakings. The purpose of this provision in the Bill—as I explained on Second Reading—is to provide the means for securing to the State some reasonable return for expenditure incurred which has resulted in the creation of an asset of continuing value. That is the purpose. I submit that it is a good purpose, and that if the Amendment were accepted, the Bill would be seriously curtailed and value represented by many millions of pounds sterling might be lost to the public.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) said that he feared that the Government might he going to use this power in order to avoid some liability to compensation, and I am not sure how far my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) shared the same view. If I might illustrate the point I would say it refers to the aerodrome which is no longer required for either defence purposes or as a civil aerodrome. With regard to the case that has been described of the derelict aerodrome, I really do not see how that case could possibly arise under this Clause. In the first place,


how could the Government represent a derelict aerodrome ex hypothesi no longer required for defence or for civil aviation as having any value as such, but even if they could, how could the Government be saving money by exercising the power given by this Clause and acquiring the area instead of letting it revert, either reconditioned or without compensation.
Let us compare the two cases. If the Government decide to let the property revert, they have either to restore under the Compensation (Defence) Act, or if they elect not to restore—and the choice is at their option—they have to pay the cost of restoration, subject to a ceiling, and the ceiling is the total value of the land at the time of requisition. That is the position if they allow the thing to revert, but if they acquire, what the Government have to pay is the whole value of the land under the Compensation Act. There is not, as far as I can see, any possibility of saving money to the Exchequer by not electing to acquire, even if the Government make a case—and I do not think they could—under this Clause on the ground that the works, not the land ex-hypothesi are derelict. I do not see how they could use the power under this Clause in such a way as to inflict hardship on individual owners for the sake of saving a small sum of money, or any money, to the Exchequer. I do not think the case could possibly arise. Let me say, and I have said it before and would like to repeat it, that it is the desire of the Government that this Clause should be used only where one or other of the three points indicated in the Clause will be secured. In all other cases, with the one exception of land which it is proposed to acquire expressly for the purpose of restoring it—and that is the provision in Clause 6—the Government will allow the land to revert, and when it reverts they will have the right to choose, as I have said, whether they will restore, or whether they will pay compensation. It is true that all sorts of questions will arise in cases where the Government decide to let the land revert, such as to whether the owner will use his compensation and whether the property will be restored. But those questions do not arise here, even if.they arise at all. I assure my hon. Friend in all sincerity that I do not see how the apprehensions they expressed can possibly arise under this Clause, the

purpose of which I have done my best to explain.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not possible, if the Government exercise the option to buy or acquire the land at the value of the land, which presumably is the value of the land without the excrescences upon it, for them to buy the land, and to save money, where the cost of restoration will be considerable, by leaving it derelict or selling it for what it will fetch?

Sir J. Anderson: I explained that I did not think so. If they buy they have to pay the value of the land. If they let the land revert, they still have to pay—unless they elect themselves to restore—the compensation in respect of the cost of restoring the damage up to a limit, which in the case assumed by my hon. Friend would be the value of the land at the time of requisition.

Mr. Benson: I am not quite sure how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is using the word "derelict".

Sir J. Anderson: I was taking it from my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Benson: I note that it was not my right hon. Friend's word. An aerodrome might be entirely useless as an aerodrome but the buildings and the runways might have considerable value to the Government for some entirely different purpose. I trust that the Government will realise that they may require very considerable tracts of land with buildings upon them for non-aviation purposes and in those circumstances they would most certainly utilise the powers under the Clause to acquire the land. I have in mind something rather dear to my heart, and that is, the entire reconstruction of the prison system, one of the major difficulties of which is that the Prison Commissioners have been unable to find sufficiently large tracts of land on which to establish prison camps. They are here in the aerodromes. At least, I have my eye on them for that purpose. I take it that the power under this Clause will enable the buildings to be used for a fundamentally different purpose from that for which they were erected.

Sir J. Anderson: I think that the case that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has just put is rather a different one from the one to which I was


addressing myself. He was referring to the case where very valuable buildings might be used for some other purpose, but the case I used was that of a factory which has substantially the same value for another purpose. I was trying to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk of the fear that there was some ulterior motive behind this and that it might be used in order to escape some obligation when under the Compensation (Defence) Act there was liability for compensation.

Lieut.-Coutmander Joynson-Hicks: I am certain that the Committee is in full sympathy with the object that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned as being the intention of the provision. Why cannot this objective be equally well, if not better, obtained under paragraph (b), the right to use any of the works on condition that the case of the land be preserved or secured to the Crown? All the examples that have been quoted, and the last one mentioned with regard to the use of aerodromes for prisons, could, I should have thought, been equally well acquired under paragraph (b). Therefore, the situation which my right hon. Friend has been seeking to allay is raised in one's mind. Another thing is the vast concrete tank traps which wander across the best agricultural land and which for all commercial or non-warlike purposes have never had any value because they have never been used. But they have been of very great cost and of very great detrimental value to the land itself. I would be grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could explain really why value is necessary as opposed to right of use.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: Surely the answer to the reply, which the law calls a rebuttal, is this: If you have two separate acres of land that are both worth £20 an acre, both having had concrete airfields put on them, if the Government purchase one, they will pay £20 per acre, and if the Government compensate for the damage caused, they will also pay £20 an acre, but in the first case the Government then have the land to sell to somebody else at £5 an acre. That is the difference. The Chancellor smiles, but that is the exact position. I am not imputing an ulterior motive to the Chancellor but the effect of paragraph (a) is that it would be easier and cheaper for the Government to purchase land under (a) than

to compensate up to the hilt of reconditioning, because in the first case they would have the land to dispose of afterwards.

Sir J. Anderson: I am sorry to speak so often, but may I deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton)? I do not suggest that one could not conjure up cases in which conceivably the Sub-section might be used in the way he suggests provided one could establish value. The value has to attach to the works, and the fact that the land would have value would not bring the matter within this provision. The works must have value and in the case he has put, although I think some other case could be thought out, the value would not be there. If I may put shortly the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks), the matter was made absolutely clear by the first illustration I gave, which was of factories all over the country erected for war purposes for which the Government will have no use in the future, the use of which they do not wish to control, and where the purpose of acquiring is to realise the value by disposing of them. That can only be dealt with under paragraph (a). May I just add this, which I hope will convince hon. Members who are still doubtful, that by acting under (a) the Government put themselves at a substantial disadvantage as compared with acting under (b>) and (c) because under (a) the finding of the Commission is final and the Government have to accept it, whereas under (b) and (c) that is not the case.

Mr. Turton: It should be.

Mr. Gallacher: Hon. Members on this side sit here in very great sorrow as they listen to the Chancellor trying to get a simple, easily-understood idea into the heads of the landlords and landowners. It is obvious to anyone who is not completely steeped in private interests in land. There are the three different proposals—(a), (b) and (c). If you have no further use for a factory and there is a possibility of a buyer for it for another purpose, it has a value which is something entirely different from (b), where you yourself are proposing to make use of a particular undertaking that you have hitherto been using or some other individual has been


using. The three are quite apparent to anyone who has the slightest desire to understand. However, in view of the fact that this matter has been raised, I would like to ask the Chancellor a question. In paragraph (c) the value of any of the works ought to be reserved either for the Crown or for someone else, but the question arises whether there should be any limit to the time that reservation shall take place because there is a point beyond which the works cease to have value and begin to decay. Hon. Members will remember what happened after the last war when there were no buyers for works left at Gretna and various other places. Year after year they suffered from the weather, and so on, and simply fell into decay. I would like the Chancellor to give his attention to that particular point, to ensure that we do not get ourselves into the position where the Government have acquired the potential value of a particular works and then find that while many of the works may be purchased for other purposes, some may not, and they are left there simply until they become derelict. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was the point which we raised."] No, it is quite important—

Mr. Turton: It is quite important; it was the point we raised.

Mr. Gallacher: It is quite important that the Government should have the right to acquire the value of the property and realise the value by disposing of it to someone who can make use of it for another purpose. Paragraph (a) is essential, but even though we recognise that, if you dispose of 90 factories out of Icio under that paragraph there might be ten left which are not easily disposable and we do not want to see them standing there year after year, because the value would simply disappear and it would be much better to take a decision for a particular period to clear them away altogether.

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that Clause 13 provides that these powers shall be available for a period up to two years after the expiration of the war period. During that time the Government will have to clear up the situation.

Sir G. Jeffreys: In view of what the Chancellor has said in explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manninģham-Butler: I beg to move, in page 3, line ro, after "land," insert:
being the person by whom and mainly at whose expense the works were constructed.
As I read the Bill as it now stands, it seems to me to be wide enough in its terms to allow of this particular thing happening: If I were able to convince any Minister who is referred to in the Bill that it was desirable that should have preserved for me the value of any works in which I have no interest, or only a limited interest, or if I could convince him that I, knowing nothing about the works, though it was right that the use of those works should be preserved for me, then that would give the Minister power of acquisition of that land or of the works, That seems to me to be quite wrong. The Minister had support from the hon. Member opposite just now, and I daresay that perhaps the hon. Member opposite will support me on this point, that it is undesirable that people who have no interest in the works should be able, if they convince the Minister that they ought to have the works, start the machinery in operation for acquiring them. I do not know whether the words of this Amendment are quite the right ones but I am quite willing to agree to any modification of them. It is in my view necessary to prescribe that the person to whom the works can be given after acquisition is the person by whom, and mainly at whose expense, the works were constructed, or his successor in title.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down this Amendment. I hope he will not press it but I will certainly undertake to consider the point. I would like to say that some different considerations may arise under the various paragraphs to which he has moved Amendments. I think it may be that under paragraph (a), where we are dealing with values, the use of the word "preserved" clearly indicates that the other person referred to in (a) must be the other person referred to above (a), who has constructed the works, because it might be difficult to say how you could preserve the value for someone who has not incurred any expense in connection with the works.

Mr. Gallacher: To my mind the term "preserved" means preserved for the Government or the person who has the value of the undertaking. It may be that


someone constructs the works and in the process of the development of the works someone else acquires them. That is possible, so you would be in a position, if the Amendment were accepted, that the party who had acquired the works and held them at the end of the war would be prevented from having the values preserved to him. In that case to whom would the value go? To someone who had constructed the works but who had sold them to the party who was in possession when the war ended?

The Attorney-General: I am not quite sure who is addressing the Committee or who is dealing with this Amendment, and the interruption of my hon. Friend seems to me a statement rather than a question. I do not think there is anything controversial about this; it does not raise a question of the nationalisation of land or anything. I think the point my hon. Friend has made is already covered under paragraph (a). When we come to (b) there is this point, that if the Crown has expended money, it ought to be able to say that it wants to purchase the works because the right to use those works ought to be held either by itself or by some other person. The Crown has expended the money and ought to be entitled to say, "We do not want to use it ourselves but we want A.B. to do so." On the other hand I am inclinded to agree that if A.13, has acquired the land, he should have the use of them. I think that is the general intention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point and, without giving any categorical assurance, except that we will look into it and discuss it with him, I hope he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the word "preserved" covers it, but I do not see how you can preserve anything that does not exist. For instance, you cannot preserve something for a person having no interest, because if he has no interest, there is nothing to preserve and therefore I do not see how the word "preserved" covers that. If these words, or something like them, are inserted, will not that limit the right of the Government to dispose of these works in the way that they can be best used? For instance, I understand that the Government's policy in regard to the location of industry, in regard to guiding industry into certain districts, is

that they ought to have the right to say where a firm is to go, and they must have these works and be able to dispose of them to that particular firm. If this is put in does it not limit the right of the Government, and give a right to the people who happen to be involved in the erection of the works?

8 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained just now the main purposes for which the words—
… or for some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land …
were inserted, and I do not want to repeat what he said, except to say that there is a drafting point here—it may raise questions of policy—which wants looking into, and that we will look into it.

Major York: Where a person who is interested in the buildings erected on requisitioned land does not require them, and will not purchase them from the Government, will the Government then have power, under this Clause, to sell them to a third or fourth party, who has no such interests?

The Attorney-General: If the Crown has built a factory, it ought to be entitled to buy it in order to preserve its value, or because it wants to use it, or because it wants somebody else to use it. The point was raised about an aircraft manufacturer who expands his factory on land which either the Crown has requisitioned so he could get on to it, or which he has obtained on short lease. The object of these words is to enable the Crown to buy the land, so that the aircraft manufacturer, who put up his own works at his own cost, can have those works and cost preserved.

Mr. Benson: I am not sure what is the difference between (a) and (b). I should say if there is a difference it is rather subtle. I hope the Attorney-General will look at this Amendment purely from a drafting point of view, and will not accept it if it has a limitation.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: This is a technical drafting matter on which there does not appear to be much difference of opinion, and in view of the Attorney-General's assurance, I gladly withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move in page 3, line 15, leave out from "land," to "or," in line 17.
I move this Amendment partly in order to obtain an explanation, because without a satisfactory explanation I think it would be wrong to have these words in the Bill. This Bill hands over to a Commission the determination of a large number of questions as to whether it is fair and just that the Crown should acquire certain land. Why should a Government Department be prevented from using this Bill, when it becomes an Act, instead of the Defence Acts? What I have in mind is the question of aerodromes which can be purchased under the Defence Acts, and under the Air Navigation Act, 1936. I suggest to the Minister that unless these words are taken out a Government Department may well be precluded from using this Bill and be forced to use the Defence Acts and the Air Navigation Act, which is linked up with the Defence Acts for this purpose? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can say whether I am right in the second assumption or not. I am sure I am right in the first assumption. Like the curate's egg, this Bill is good in parts and bad in parts, and I think we ought to have one Bill for dealing with the question of the acquisition of requisitioned land. I, personally, do not understand why there should be included in this Bill the words:
… and the case is not the one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts apart from this part of this Act.

Mr. Peake: Sub-section (1, b) of this Clause deals with the case where a Minister seeks to acquire land upon which war works have been constructed on the ground that he wants the right to use the works. Under the ordinary law, which operates in peace-time by the Defence Acts, dating from 1842 onwards, the Government have the right to acquire land for defence purposes, and all the time I have been in Parliament I have never heard anybody question the necessity of the right of the Government to decide what land it must possess for the safety of the country. We are putting the words into Sub-section (1, b) which my hon. Friend proposes to omit with the sole purpose of preserving a clear line of demarcation between acquisitions which may be necessary for the defence of the country, and which can be

carried out under the ordinary Defence Acts procedure which has operated for over too years, and the special and different class of case which is provided for in this Bill where war works have been constructed upon requisitioned land. These powers are of a very limited duration and character. Supposing land is acquired during the next few years under the Defence Acts for defence purposes, a claim might be raised that the land should have been acquired under this Bill, and that the procedure of the Commission in regard to the hearing of objections should have been followed. We must preserve a clear line of demarcation between the normal peace-time law and the special provisions, limited in duration, which are provided by this Bill.

Mr. Turton: Surely it is desirable, where requisitioned land is going to be used for civil aviation, that it should come under this Bill and not under the Air Navigation Act?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend has raised a point of some obscurity, but I am sure he is wrong in stating that the Air Navigation Act, 1936, ranks as one of the Defence Acts. I am clear that where war works have been constructed on requisitioned land and are required for civil aviation, as may be the case, the procedure to be followed will be that laid down under this Bill.

Mr. Turton: I would point out to my right hon. Friend that I raised this matter on the Second Reading and at that time the Government said they would look into the matter and explain it later. I raise the matter to-day and I am told that it is a point of some obscurity. I hope that before the Report stage is reached the whole question of civil aerodromes and the Air Navigation Act, 1936, will be looked into.

Mr. Peake: Although a point may be somewhat obscure, the answer to it may be perfectly clear.

Mr. Turton: In view of my right hon. Friend's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Coleģate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 23.
The effect of this Amendment is to leave out Sub-section (1, c) of this Clause. Here again, some explanation would appear to be necessary, especially in view of the fact that the Government have ample powers in Sub-section (1, a and b) to secure the value of any works which has been put up on land. The power in this provision appears to be extremely wide and rather unusual in character. The provision reads:
The right to determine the use to which the works are put (whether then or thereafter) ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be secured for the Crown.
That appears to give a wide power. For example, the First Lord of the Admiralty is one of the Ministers who would have such power. If it were his opinion that a camp built for Naval purposes in some beautiful part of Wales should be used as a holiday camp, could he exercise his power under this provision and say, "I want that land to be acquired, because in my opinion it ought to be used as a holiday camp"? Could he acquire the land and then sell it to a person catering for holiday camps, and so determine its use? I cannot understand why these wide powers are given, because any legitimate object is fully covered by Sub-section (1, a and b). This additional and rather obscure power to determine the use to which the works are to be put cuts right across the present state of the law, it cuts across anything that comes under the distribution of industry, and it allows to any one of a limited class of Ministers the power to determine the particular use to which he would like the works to be put. It does not affect the defence of the Realm or anything of that kind. One can understand that in the case of some works of vital war importance the Minister may want to say, "This works must not be disposed of; we must acquire it for defence purposes." He has that power already. This is a case which does not come into that category, and the provision is a very curious one unless there is some explanation for this wide power. On the face of it, it means that you could have a Minister wholly opposed to private enterprise or wholly opposed to co-operative enterprise laying down the law as to whether he would allow a works to be used for this or that purpose. I ask the Financial Secretary to give the Committee an explanation of this very wide power.

Major York: I support my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Cole-gate). This is one of the cases that could quite adequately be met by a restrictive covenant rather than by acquisition. I cannot see why the Government, all through this Bill, are obtaining power to acquire land when in numerous cases and in several Clauses all that they require is the right to say how the land is to he used. I do not think there is in any part of the Bill a power for the Government to obtain a restrictive covenant. I think that Sub-section (1, c) is quite unnecessary. I want to ask a question in regard to the powers of the Commission in this instance. As far as I can gather, the Commission will be able to adjudicate on where the right to determine the use is required in order that restoration may take place, but it is not stated in any part of the Bill that where the right to determine the use is for purposes other than restoration the Commission are to have any say in the matter.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of this Amendment. If the Financial Secretary were to accept the Amendment he would reduce to a nullity the control which we hope to acquire under this Bill. Under Sub-section (1, a) there is a provision to secure to the community the value of properties which have been acquired. I imagine nobody in the Committee objects to that principle. Under Sub-section (1, b) the Government are given the further power to preserve the use of land which has been acquired. In Sub-section (1, c) they have the right to determine the future use of the works. I hope the Committee are not so seized with the love of war and its objects that they would want to continue for all time the war-time purposes for which these lands have been acquired. Therefore, there must be preserved, if the community is to have the value of the land which has been acquired, some right in the community which has acquired the land to determine the use to which it may be put in the future in order that the community may, in some way or other, recover the value of the money which has been invested in the land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under (a)."] All that (a) does is to give the Crown power to retain the value of the works. That is the kind of case where you have works which will


be continued. There may very well arise a case of a camp which has been used for the purpose of training people for one or other branch of the Armed Forces. If you are going to retain the value of the works which are to be preserved for the Crown or some other person interested in them, it means that you have a camp for the training of commandos, and under (a) all you could do would be to find a market for a camp for the training of commandos.

Mr. Turton: Quite clearly a camp for the training of commandos is one that could be acquired under the Defence Acts.

Mr. Huģhes: The hon. Member will be well aware of the limitations under the Defence Acts for the retention of such lands.

Mr. Turton: There is a perfect right for the Crown to acquire the land.

Mr. Huģhes: I do not accept that at all. You will not find it under the Act of 1903. That Act only extends the law in order to acquire land for the purpose of building barracks. The object of paragraph (c) is to enable the Crown to acquire land which is now being requisitioned in order to devote it to some other use than that to which it was put. If the Crown desires to use land not as a camp to train commandos but far one of the many purposes under the Education Act which we passed last, year, paragraph (c) is essential for that purpose. It gives the Crown the right to determine the use to which it is going to be put. I object to the elimination of the paragraph on that ground alone that, when land has been requisitioned and is now going to be acquired, the right to direct its use should not be limited to preserving the value, as under (a), or to preserve the use to which it is now directed, but it ought to be available to the Crown to direct some other use for it. That is all that (c) is for and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: When I have explained the true purpose of the paragraph I think my hon. Friend will be reasonably satisfied. It is true that there may be some overlap between paragraphs (a) and (c). The opening words of the Clause are:
Where there are Government war works on the land

and those words govern the Clause. But there may be cases where it would not be possible to make out a case for acquisition under paragraph (a) on the ground that the value of the works ought to be preserved—the value of the works may be comparatively small—and the object of (c) is really connected with our war potential. I have one case in mind of land adjacent to an aircraft factory which produces fighter aircraft. There are Government war works on the land but they are not of very substantial value, and it will not be possible to make out a case for acquisition purely on the ground of value, but it is very vital to the continuance of the factory as part of our war potential that there should be an aerodrome there for testing aircraft, and that is a case where the right to determine the use to which the works are put ought to be secured for the Crown.

Mr. Coleģate: The Defence Acts give that.

Mr. Peake: It is still the case, and has been throughout the war, that a good deal of our armaments is produced by private enterprise and not by the Crown. Hon. Members opposite have frequently argued that armaments production ought to be the monopoly of the State, but that is not the case, and on whether it ever will be I cannot express an opinion. The case I have in mind is where there could be no acquisition under the Defence Acts, because the aircraft industry is not conducted under the Crown, but it is necessary for our war potential that this property should be acquired in order that the factory can produce aircraft. I can think of other examples where certain forms of production are essential to the safety of the country. I suppose Radar is a very clear example. It is obviously necessary that factories which have been engaged on Radar production should not have their machinery removed in order that they may engage in the production of silk stockings. Therefore it is necessary for the President of the Board of Trade to be able to determine what the future use of these factories is to be, and that is the real purpose of paragraph (c).

Mr. Molson: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite suggests that the effect of the paragraph would be to enable a camp at present used for naval purposes to be used for some other purpose. Actually it seems to me that he


has accurately construed what the words, say. The Financial Secretary in reply has indicated that the Government have in mind to obtain necessary powers to ensure the use of the land in a way which will not be harmful to the defence of the country. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech indicates that the words are extremely wide. I wonder whether the Financial Secretary will consider the matter between now and the Report stage to see whether it is possible to devise words which will more accurately represent the purpose which he has clearly put in his speech. The words in the Bill include a vast realm of possible activities which are clearly not contemplated.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: Those who have been engaged on the preparation of this Bill have been exercising their brains on it for something over two years, and these are the best words they can devise for securing the purpose we have in mind. If my hon. Friend who has not, in the course of the three months he has had to study the Bill, been able to devise any different words, he will have an opportunity between now and the Report stage to do so. We will consider what he has said, but I think that the words are apt for the purpose we have in mind. It is not proposed under this Clause to say that the Government ought to have the right to determine the use of what is going to be a holiday camp. If an armed camp were to be acquired under the Bill, it certainly would not be on the grounds of paragraph (c). It would much rather be upon the ground that the value ought to be preserved.

Captain Duncan: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the President of the Board of Trade, but I should like to get it clear whether the Board of Trade has the right to use any of these works. Under Clause 4 the Ministers are detailed, and the only reference to the Board of Trade is in Clause 8, Sub-section (5). I hope that I am right in saying that the Board of Trade does not come into this. If there is, on defence grounds, a reason for determining the use to which some works are to be put in future, it will not be the Board of Trade, but one of the Defence Ministers or the,Committee of Imperial Defence, or somebody else, but not the Board of Trade.

Mr. Peake: I cannot say that the President of the Board of Trade will come in

under this Clause. What the Clause says is that the right to determine the use ought to be secured for the Crown, and the Crown means His Majesty's Government as a whole. The actual Minister concerned with the production of these various things may very well not be the President of the Board of Trade; he will much more likely be one of the Supply Ministers.

Mr. Huģhes: I am not at all satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. I find it impossible to construe this Sub-section in the terms which he has endeavoured to put before the Committee. The explanation he has given is that this is the kind of provision that will be necessary if an aerodrome or works is to be extended and retained for the purposes of the Crown.

Mr. Peake: The right to determine the use is to be secured to the Crown.

Mr. Huģhes: There is no justification in the terms of the paragraph for that contention. This Clause commences with a provision that where there are Government war works, the power of acquisition shall be exercisable, if, in the opinion of the Minister—and then we come to paragraph (c), which says that the right to determine the use ought to be secured for the Crown. That does not contemplate the kind of case which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, that is, an extension of existing works for the benefit of the Crown.

Mr. Peake: I never said that.

Mr. Huģhes: The right hon. Gentleman gave that as an instance of the application of this paragraph. I put the instance, which he dismissed out of hand, of the Government having under their control a commando camp which it might be desirable to use for civilian purposes under the Education Act. He dismissed it as not being relevant. I should like to have some answer from him as to whether that is not the kind of case which is contemplated by this provision.

Mr. Peake: The main purpose of paragraph (c) is the war potential purpose which I described, I thought, fairly clearly. It does not involve an extension of works, but the preservation of the use of works and the determination of the future use of works in the interests of


our war potential for the future. Of course, there may be cases—I do not think there will be many—which do not fall within paragraph (c) and where the Government have an interest in the determination of the future use of the works. If hon. Members have read the Distribution of Industry Bill, they will have seen that the Government have an interest in the diversification of industry throughout the country, and it is conceivable that a case might arise under paragraph (c) where the distribution of industry policy was involved. Generally speaking, however, in that sort of case there will be power to acquire under paragraph (a) on the ground of the necessity of preserving the value to the Crown.

Mr. Huģhes: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my point about a commando camp which might be used under the Education Act?

Mr. Peake: I do not know what a commando camp is.

Mr. Coleģate: I am satisfied with my right hon. Friend's explanation, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I now understand the limitations of this paragraph, and we may have an opportunity before the Report stage to find better words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at end, insert:
Provided always that without prejudice to the power of acquisition the use of any such works shall conform to any relevant town planning scheme.
I confess that I am somewhat at a loss to advance arguments in support of this Amendment in view of the answers which have been given by the Financial Secretary on the previous Amendment. I had assumed that paragraph (c) was directed to enable the Crown to use for civilian purposes after the war, where it was proper so to do, land which had been acquired for war purposes. I advanced the example of—

The Chairman (Major Milner): I do not see what that example has to do with the words in the Amendment. We cannot have a repetition of the arguments on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Huģhes: I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner. I was only bringing that into the argument in order to test the relevance of town planning to the purview of the Bill. Obviously, town planning cannot possibly enter into its purview unless we are dealing with something which is outside immediate military necessity. If the provisions of the Clause are entirely limited to war purposes, obviously town planning cannot enter into it. War purposes must necessarily override all questions of normal town planning, and unless in the preceding provisions of this Clause there is a possibility of future civil use coming into the picture, town planning cannot enter into it at all. I was only referring to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of showing that if he meant that, then this Amendment falls to the ground. I ventured to think that you might permit me to argue that the terms of the Clause are, as presented before us, wider than merely provision for war purposes. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I (c) is limited to war potentials, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that in its terms it is by no means so limited. There is nothing in the Clause which would limit it to that extent. The Clause begins with the provisions for the general acquisition of land subject to certain conditions, one of which, (c), is:
the right to determine the use to which the works are put ought by the acquisition of the land to be secured by the Crown.
In that language there is nothing to suggest that the right to secure the use should be limited to war purposes. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place now, and I suppose my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who will answer for him can say whether the interpretation of this paragraph in any court of law would be that the right would be secured for the Crown only for the purposes of war potentials.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is not really raising matters which are connected with this Amendment, which reads:
Provided always that without prejudice to the power of acquisition the use of any such works shall conform to any relevant town planning scheme.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is rearguing the previous Amendment which has been disposed of, and I must ask


him to confine himself to the terms of his Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Huģhes: I appreciate the full force of your Ruling and I bow to it. All I would respectfully submit is that if the interpretation given by the Financial Secretary is that the terms of (c) are limited to the purposes of war potentials, then my Amendment is completely out of Order and is irrelevant, because if war potential is intended then town planning cannot enter into it at all. Town planning can only enter into it when pure war purposes are resigned, and my argument is only to show that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he suggested that the purposes of (c) were war potential. When war potential is put out of the way, it is open for me to argue that the use of the land and the power of acquisition in respect of it, in the terms of my Amendment, should be directed to conformity with any relevant town planning scheme. That arises when we have land which has been requisitioned by the Crown, which has been used for war purposes, and which the Crown is now going to have the power to acquire. I do not object to that, but this very paragraph (c) gives power to direct the use of that piece of land.
I assume, and I will not argue the point again, that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he suggested that its only use should be for war potentials. I assume now that the Crown has power to direct its use in any way which may seem fit which seems to me the exact purpose of paragraph (c) as it is read by the Members of the Committee. If it is so is it not right that giving power to the Crown to direct the use of the land should have regard to the town planning scheme within the area? Let me give the Committee an example. You have land which has been acquired by the town under the Defence Act or under Defence Regulations for the purpose of a training camp. Under this Bill the Crown can acquire that land, and under (c) the Crown can direct to what use it shall be put. It may very well be for town planning purposes, when the town planning authority would decide that this land which was used for training purposes should now be an open space, should now be agricultural land or, if you will, should be used to build up an industrial area, and I think it is only right that the

Crown when it acquires this land and is being given the power to direct the use of it, should be made to conform to the town planning scheme within the area where the land lies, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

The Attorney-General: With due respect to your Ruling, Major Milner, I think my right hon. Friend in dealing with (c) was saying what the purpose was for which the land was likely to be acquired, and he tells me that he did not in his explanation restrict its terms. To come to this Amendment it obviously raises an interesting point. Our view about it is that the approach which the Government makes to this problem is on the whole a more logical and profitable one than that suggested in the Amendment. Owing to the fact that before the war the number of planning schemes was very limited, particularly in rural areas, where many of these works have been put up. These, owing to the powers of this Bill would be outside the town planning schemes altogether. All these cases this Amendment would not touch. On the other hand there may be cases within the town planning scheme where there would be some minor infringements, but having regard to the fact that the money has been spent and the structure is there, then those who are most anxious about town planning, and those include, I am sure, the Members of this Committee, will see that there is no inconsistency in the provisions of the Clause.
The approach which we suggest, which to some extent is embodied in later Amendments on the Order Paper, and to some extent is a matter of Government policy, is that it is the Government's intention, and indeed it is necessarily so, that within the framework of Government, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be in the closest touch with the exercise of all the powers under this Bill. I said "necessarily," because if hon. Members look at the first Section of the Act which set up the office of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, they will see that he is charged under that Statute—I am not quoting the words textually—with the general supervision of the use and development of the whole of the land of the country. Therefore, under the Statute he is necessarily involved. As a matter of administrative and Government working he will be in the closest touch with the exercise of all the powers under


the Bill, and he is the Minister who has the general knowledge of, and responsibility for, all the town planning schemes.
Also, there is an Amendment to which I must not refer in detail, in the name of my right hon. Friend, I think on Clause 8, which gives a planning authority the right to appear before the Commission. There are other Amendments which I think are relevant to what I may call the general planning interests, and their safeguarding in the working of this Bill. Having regard to the fact that a very large number of works that have been put up are outside areas controlled by planning schemes in existence before the war, and to many other cases, we think the proper approach is not by putting down a cast-iron Amendment, which would let by many big fish, and catch the small fish which one would rather see swimming in the sea, but by seeing that in the general structure and administration of this Bill there are opportunities for the proper representation of planning considerations, first within the Government itself, and at later stages, when controversy arises, before the Commission. I hone that in view of that explanation my hon. and learned Friend will see his way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: The point put by my hon. Friend refers to the question of the acquisition, but paragraph (c) gives the Government the right to determine the use after acquisition. In the later stages of the war factories have been built in such a way as to conform to general postwar enterprise, but in the earlier part of the war they were not so designed. Some places have been built or extended rather hurriedly, and the use to which they are put may conflict very seriously with the planning and hygiene of a district. It may be that economy will, from the Government's point of view, determine that they should continue the unhygienic use of these factories. I hope that even after acquisition the termination of the use of these activities will not be out of conformity with the general desires in regard to planning, and hygiene and the health of a district, and that merely for the sake of economy they will not violate the planning of a district.

The Attorney-General: What my hon. Friend has said rather supports my argument, that a great many of these cases

would not, in,fact, be covered or be a technical infringement of a town planning scheme. Everybody desires we should plan as good an England as possible— [An HON. MEMBER: "And Wales"]— and Wales and Scotland, but of course I cannot give any general undertaking. We are seeking to see that town planning considerations get their proper and emphatic place in the administration of this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at end, insert:
Provided that the Minister shall not exercise the power of acquisition with respect to any land until after consultation with the local planning authority nor otherwise than subject to the considerations to which the Commission are required by section eleven of this Act to have regard in connection with any proposals referred to them.
I am somewhat encouraged and emboldened by the very sympathetic reference which the Attorney-General has just made to the importance of planning considerations. Apparently the Government intend that these very wide powers which they are taking over under this Bill shall not be exercised otherwise than in accordance with good and sound planning considerations. Those of us who believe in town and country planning believe that all the relevant considerations which have to be taken into account in this Bill will be present to the minds of the local planning authority, and secondly, if they are inclined to take too local and provincial a view they are subject, under present town planning legislation, to the general supervision by which, in cases in which anyone is dissatisfied, an appeal lies to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The Attorney-General has referred to the Amendment to Clause 8 standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will require that the Minister of Town and Country Planning shall be consulted in these matters.
May I say here to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and perhaps with less asperity to the Attorney-General, that we who are trying to move Amendments to this Bill to improve it are told that the Government have had this Bill under consideration for two years, and that in the course of that time they have devised the best wording to give effect to their intentions, but I notice not only a very large number of Amendments have been put


down by Private Members, but a very large number, including some brand new Clauses, have been put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. So it is the case that since this Bill was introduced and was subjected to criticism in this House and in the country, the Government have reapplied their minds to it, and in the two months they have done more profitable thinking than they had managed to do when their cogitations were unassisted by public criticism. I find it a little difficult to find my way about this Bill. I not only have to refer to the Order Paper issued today, but there are new Clauses which are only contained in the Order Paper issued yesterday. If I trip up, and if I have overlooked some of the afterthoughts of the Government and have not given full consideration to some of the Amendments which the Government have put down to their own Bill, I hope that the learned Attorney-General will treat me with gentleness in this matter.
9.0 p.m.
My hon. Friends and I ask that Ministers, in exercising these powers of compulsory acquisition, shall take into consideration the plans which have been prepared by local planning authorities and that they shall, as far as possible, direct their policy of acquisition in accordance with local planning considerations. In other matters, we ask that the Minister shall, in the first instance, be governed by those considerations by which the Commission must be guided under Clause ii. The Government may say that it is excessive caution on our part to ask that Ministers are to be influenced by those considerations, but Ministers are able, in exercising these compulsory powers of acquisition to override in certain circumstances the opinion of the Commission, and it is in those circumstances that it is important that the Ministers should take into account the various considerations set out in Clause II.
Subject to those considerations, and except where there is some overriding. consideration of national security, I hope that, in accordance with the general attitude which has been expressed by the Government that the Bill shall fit in with the existing code of town and country planning, the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Benson: The hon. Member who has just spoken asks that the Government should consult local planning authorities, but he entirely failed to explain what the Government were to consult them about and what possible outcome the consultation could have. The Government propose, under the Clause, to take over land on which there are specific works. If they do not take it over, what happens? It reverts to the owner, with the works on it. It does not seem to me that consultation with housing and town planning authorities has any bearing on the question whether the land and the works shall, at a given date, be owned either by the Government or by the previous landlord. There is no point in consultation. The fact is that the Amendment, like a lot of the other Amendments that have been put down, is pure obstruction.

Mr. Keelinģ: It does not seem to me at all clear from the Order Paper whether the proviso in the Amendment is intended to qualify only paragraph (c) or the whole of the Sub-section. It seems very queer, after we have been legislating here for hundreds of years, that there seems to be no typographical device for showing on the Order Paper whether an Amendment which follows a paragraph of a Subsection is intended to qualify that paragraph only, or the whole of the Subsection. I now gather from my hon. Friend that his intention is that the proviso should qualify the whole Sub-section.
I want to give a concrete example which proves the necessity for the Amendment, and I do so at the request of authorities in the New Forest. Several rural district councils in and near the New Forest have formed a joint planning committee and they have had very much in mind the layout of the countryside. There is a large aerodrome, the site of. which I will not specify, but perhaps I might say that it is somewhere between the New Forest and Bournemouth. That committee have been very much disturbed to learn not so much that the Government propose to acquire the aerodrome but that they propose to acquire a very large amount of the adjoining land, without any consultation with the planning authority. They believe that this adjoining land will cut right across the line of the new main road to Bournemouth, which has been planned by the Hampshire County Council. The new main


road obviously figures largely in the committee's plans for the layout of the countryside, which they naturally want to keep as picturesque and as attractive as possible so as to be a worthy approach from the New Forest to Bournemouth. They are therefore very much concerned not only about the threat to the line of their new road, but also about buildings to be erected on the adjoining land, trees that are to be cut down and the general devastation entailed in the reconstruction or alteration of the aerodrome.
They feel that there ought to be consultation between Ministries concerned and themselves, to ascertain the facts and to find a solution satisfactory to everybody. It ought surely to be a matter of routine, but it is not at present, because no consultation has taken place. I would like to see the Amendment passed, not only for its value as improving the Bill but as a strong hint to Ministers about the course which they would be wise to take now, in anticipation of what the law will be if the Amendment is carried. I support the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: I will just try to clarify the issue raised in the Amendment. I may have misread it, but it seems to me to be a qualification of Sub-section (1) and not to be limited to paragraph (c).

Mr. Molson: That is so.

Mr. Peake: I am very glad that the hon. Member agrees with my interpretation. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) observed, this really is not the point at which consultation with the local planning authority is suitable. After all, if the Government have spent £250,000 on erecting a factory upon requisitioned land, consultation with the local planning authority is not likely to divert them from their object of trying to secure some benefit for the taxpayers for the money which has been expended; but where planning considerations are of importance, of course, is in the future use to which the factory or the land is put.
We have considered the Clause and the Bill very carefully, in the light of criticisms made in the Second Reading Debate that insufficient attention was paid to considerations of planning. If hon. Members will study the Order Paper they will see that we have brought in planning considerations at three very important stages.

We have given planning authorities the right to object to proposals before the Commission; we have directed the Commission itself to have regard to planning considerations; and we have put in a Clause to the effect that if the Commission are in difficulty as to considerations of planning and think that there are substantial planning objections, the Commission may refer the whole matter to the Minister of Town and Country Planning for his observations. It therefore seems to me to follow that planning considerations will be amply covered.
But I do not think it would be apt to bring in planning considerations at the stage where the Minister is contemplating acquisition. Consultation at that stage is not likely to bear any fruit, because the Minister will put his case forward, and it is when objections have to be considered by the Commission that planning considerations really come into the picture. Where there is a planning scheme in force, and land is acquired by the Government under the procedure laid down in the Bill, and subsequently sold to a third party, the local planning scheme comes into force as against the purchaser of the property; so, where there are already planning schemes in existence, they will not be prejudiced through the land subject to them being acquired under the Bill and subsequently being sold. I hope that, in view of that explanation, and of the late hour and the rather small progress we have made with the Bill to-day, my hon. Friends will permit us to have the Clause.

Major York: My right hon. Friend has gone a very long way towards clearing the matter up, but I was shocked by what he said in starting off. It struck me that his Department, at any rate, had decided that town and country planning shall not be affected by any large expenditure of money by the Treasury. That is the effect of his opening sentence. That was the criticism of the whole Bill which my hon. Friends and I have made all along. This is an obvious admission by the Government that it is very much in the forefront of their minds. It appeared to me that the Financial Secretary was falling into the same error as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), but the error was on slightly different grounds. Whereas the Financial Secretary's grounds were


financial purely, the grounds of the hon. Member for Chesterfield were on political dogma purely. I, and I think my hon. Friends, reject both of those two solutions to this problem. Whatever may happen as a result of later Amendments by which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning is to be consulted, but no more than consulted—I assume that his advice may or may not be taken—there is in my district a very large Ministry of Supply factory. That factory has been so badly sited that it has always been impossible to obtain a sufficient labour force fully to man it. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money was spent on putting it there. Are we to assume that, although that factory is obviously outside the realm of proper town and country planning and proper location of industry, because hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on it it is going to be held there against the wishes of the local planning authority and the obvious interest of the district? The learned Attorney-General seemed to suggest that there were few of these town and country planning schemes in force in the rural areas. That is a most libellous statement, if he refers to the North. The Attorney-General has been so long in his present office that I cannot remember what part of the country he comes from.

The Attorney-General: Crewe.

9.15 p.m.

Major York: It must be a very backward part of the country. If he comes up to the North he will find that all our plans have been ready for a very long time. The county from which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and I come is, I think, fully covered. I hope that the Government will think twice before relying on pure consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Mr. Molson: I must protest against a statement, which was an unparliamentary expression, by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that I was indulging in obstruction. It is absolutely untrue. I am most anxious that proper planning considerations shall be applied in this matter. In view of the explanation which has been given by my right hon. Friend and the promise that various Amendments will be made at more appro-

priate parts of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the development of certain areas, and for controlling the provision of industrial premises with a view to securing the proper distribution of industry, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses, payable under the said Act out of such moneys, of any Government Department incurred under the said Act—

(1)in acquiring land in development areas (as defined by the said Act) for, or for sites for or means of access to, premises for industrial undertakings and persons employed therein, and in carrying out in development areas work for the purpose of providing such premises, sites or means of access or of rendering land suitable for their provision;
(2) in giving financial assistance for furthering the provision by any body of persons not trading for private profit of industrial premises in development areas and for meeting the needs of development areas in respect of any service for which a Minister of the Crown is responsible, and in giving financial assistance to industrial undertakings in development areas which could not otherwise obtain necessary capital;
(3) in acquiring, or carrying out work on, derelict land in development areas, and in giving financial assistance to any such body of persons as aforesaid towards the cost of carrying out work on such land;
(4) in the repayment of expenditure incurred in or in connection with the erection or extension of buildings which is prevented under the said Act of the present Session,
and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to be paid into any fund under the control of a Government Department for the purpose of meeting any expenses of that Department incurred as aforesaid which under the said Act are payable out of that fund.
B. The payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of a Government Department under the said Act of the present Session, of any balance in the Special Areas Fund at the winding up thereof under the provisions of that Act, and of any sums which apart from those provisions would be payable into that. Fund."

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Mr. de Rothschild discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and Professor Gruffydd added.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

POLICE (ARBITRATION MACHINERY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]

9.20 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to raise a matter which has given me considerable anxiety for some time past. I refer to the absence of any adequate or satisfactory machinery for the handling of grievances amongst the Regular Police, the Auxiliary Police and other Defence Services of this country. In the happily altered situation of the war, we may hope, before long, that the other Defence Services will disappear from the picture, but the Regular Police will remain with us permanently, and the Auxiliary Police will remain with us for some years to come.
For a long time past a number of us in this House have been pressing that two or three rights should be given to the Regular and the Auxiliary Police. The first is the elementary right of being free to join their own trade union. The second is the right to have access to adequate and proper conciliation machinery for the amicable discussion of grievances. The third is the right, when conciliation methods fail to produce an agreed settlement, to go to properly constituted arbitration machinery. If I were arguing this case in respect of any other body of workmen in Britain, it would be thought illogical to do so, for, by common consent, the rightful position of trade unions has been recognised. During this war, in particular, we have not merely asked but we have imposed upon the Minister of Labour the responsibility of dealing with wages and other disputes in order to avoid strikes, and the duty imposed upon him is the duty either of compelling the employer to establish adequate conciliation machinery, or of referring a dispute to a National Wages Tribunal set up by the Government of this country. In regard to the police we deny them all three. They are denied, under the Police Act of 1919, the right to belong

to a union; they have no conciliation machinery except the Home Office patronised Police Federation, whose primary function appears to be to advance claims every six months, to which the Home Office says "No" six months later, and they are denied access to arbitration machinery where conciliation fails to produce the desired result. I have had just as much support from Conservative Members on this issue as I have had from hon. Members on the Labour side; in fact, there is a general recognition that this is a general duty on us all. Other hon. Members and I have been trying to obtain these three rights, or the reason why they have not been given. We have been given not merely no adequate reason but no reason at all.
When I raised this matter the other day the Home Secretary, with astonishing irrelevance, said it had been decided to give the police an increase in pay. That is not the point. A claim for the establishment of conciliation and arbitration machinery is not answered by doling out half a crown. That is dodging the issue. We have had no answer except a little "smart-Alecism" and one or two wisecracks, which I do not want to receive from the Home Secretary this evening because if I do I shall be moved to great wrath. No reason whatever has been given for the refusal of these elementary rights except that one cannot have trade unions, conciliation machinery and arbitration machinery in a disciplined service. There is in the operations of the Home Office a mental muzziness which has been a considerable source of distress to me, and I do not think it has even analysed the word "discipline." There can be no service, from domestic service to divine service, which is not disciplined. The railway service is a disciplined service. If it were not, the railways would not run to time. The Civil Service is a disciplined service; domestic service is disciplined and the Parliamentary Private Secretaryship is a disciplined service. There is no service Which is not, in fact, a disciplined service. What the Home Office means when it says the police service is a disciplined service is not that it is a disciplined service, but that it is a quasi-military service. If that is what the Home Office means, this is the answer: the more military or quasi-military a service becomes, the more essential it is that there should be adequate safeguards against injustice


within it. That is the answer to the suggestion that we cannot give these rights because the police is a disciplined service. I cannot go into the question of the pay of the police to-night; I have enough material already to keep me going for some time. Among other reasons, I do not think this House is the best qualified body to make a meticulous examination of wage claims on behalf of various sections of the public service, but it is the body which has the duty and the power to insist that there shall be proper machinery for dealing with those claims in an organised way.
What is the situation among the police? Do not let us make any bones about it, and the House will forgive me if I use plain language. There is widespread discontent from one end of Britain to the other in the police service. This discontent centres on three things: First, individual acts of injustice by those higher up against which there is no adequate means of redress; secondly, an astonishingly inadequate standard of wages and increases in wages in comparison with the general rises which have taken place in Britain; and, thirdly, a mounting resentment at the fact that the police are treated as having less natural rights than other sections of the working class in Britain. Serious trouble is coming.
On the whole, I am a man of peace, and I am making this appeal not because I want to see it but because I know it is coming. In Edinburgh last week the police held a mass meeting. In, London the police have just formulated a new wages scheme. In every area in Britain there is bitter feeling amongst the police, because of the handling of cases against which there is no appeal, and Miss Wilkinson should know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I did not know that I was out of Order. That ejaculation "Order" is, to some extent, a reflection on the mind of the House. The prohibition of mentioning a name dates back to the Long Parliament when we were afraid that the King might hear what we were saying. We have passed that time, and there is no reason why the whole world should not hear what we are saying. We are heading straight for grave and serious trouble. If there is another strike, the Home Secretary will rush to concede what I am demanding. I ask him to concede it to justice rather

than to force, as he will concede it sooner or later. It is wrong that anybody should be denied these elementary rights for which I am appealing to-night. Most of all is it wrong that we, who are a democracy, should deny those rights to a public service.
What disturbs me is that I have known a large number of Home Secretaries for over 30 years—in fact, I am practically an authority on Home Secretaries—and it pains me that we should be having this difficulty from the present Home Secretary. The present Home Secretary is a Labour man and, of all the Cabinet Ministers I can think of, the last Cabinet Minister to deny these elementary trade union labour rights should be a Labour Home Secretary. It is true that the present Home Secretary has not quite the same trade union background as others of us in this House, including myself. But he has something which ought to compensate for that. The Home Secretary is himself the son of a "copper." To me it is a tragedy that a working class representative, the son of a policeman, elevated to the very high position of Home Secretary, should be the Minister who is to-day denying to his father's old colleagues in the police service, the rights which the trade union movement in this country, including the right hon. Lady opposite, has pressed for, for the last 30 or 40 years. It is an incredible position which ought not to be allowed to go on.
It is a serious case which I am putting, and I want a serious reply. There is widespread discontent. It is justified discontent; it is discontent that is getting worse, it is discontent that will, sooner or later, break; and it is discontent which the Home Office deserves should break, if they do not deal with the situation now. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Minister, to deal with this case. I do not want any wisecracks.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. Member does not object to wisecracks about other people?

Mr. Brown: I do not quite follow the point.

Mr. E. Walkden: The hon. Member is objecting to wisecracks directed at himself, hut he makes wisecracks himself about others.

Mr. Brown: I am not making wisecracks; I am making a downright, forthright attack. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Hon. Members will please address their remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Brown: Is it denied that these claims have been rejected by the Home Secretary? Is it denied that the Home Secretary is the son of a policeman? Is it denied that he is a Labour Minister? Is it denied that the Labour movement has stood for these rights of proper conciliation and arbitration machinery?

Sir Joseph Lamb: I certainly deny the hon. Member's statement that there is no machinery.

Mr. Brown: I did not say that at all. I cannot help it if the hon. Gentleman, in addition to being inattentive, is also deaf. I said there was no adequate machinery, and that the only machinery was the machinery of the Police Federation which, for all practical purposes, is in the hands and pockets of the Home Secretary. I want a reasonable answer to this case, because the Parliamentary Secretary has to answer to-night not me but something like 100,000 policemen in this country, who have the right to look to this House for better treatment than they have been getting, and, above all, for the elementary rights for which I am asking to-night.

9.33 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): The hon. Member in making his case has demanded that we should not have any wisecracks, and I do not propose to give him any. But I hope he will forgive me if I remind him that rudeness is not argument, and neither are strings of statements made from a highly partisan point of view. They would be more excusable from someone who did not know the history of the police as well as the hon. Gentleman. Let me assure him that the Home Secretary and myself—I do not think he would deny that my trade union record is quite as good as his—have approached this question with seriousness and with the full appreciation of the advantages of arbitration. There are certain other important considerations which have to be borne in mind. I am not suggesting that they are arguments against

arbitration, nor am I putting them forward as such, but I wish the House to understand that there is another side to the case besides the string of somewhat heated statements made by the hon. Member.
Taking the case of the police, arbitration is not just as simple as it is in the case, say, of the railway company to which the hon. Member referred. The police are organised in local forces and paid by the local funds, but they are, in law, officers of the Crown. At the same time, their rates and conditions of service are standardised by regulations made by the Home Office in England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. To add to the picture of a system which goes deep into our history, and which is none of thks, present Home Secretary's making, half of the cost of approved expenditure on the police is paid by the Exchequer. This raises the question of whether arbitration is to be between the local police authority and the local police or between the Home Office, or the Scottish Office in the case of Scotland, and the police service as a whole. If arbitration were permitted to the police authorities the responsibility for securing proper conditions of service for the police would be removed from the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the result would simply be a return to the bad old system that was condemned by the Desborough Report when the wages varied all over the country.

Mr. Brown: It is something like the case of the teachers and local government.

Miss Wilkinson: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I have exactly ten minutes in which to reply. If, on the other hand, the arbitration is between the Home Office and the police service, are the interests of the local authorities to be ignored?

Mr. Brown: Is that question addressed to me? If so, I will deal with it.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to reply to him or does he merely want a dialogue? If he wants a dialogue and a series of cross wisecracks I will join in the competition, but he asked for a serious statement. If he wants a serious statement, he will get it and he had better stay quiet. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to be addressed, I will address my remarks to the hon.


Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden), through the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has thrown great scorn upon the use of the word "disciplined service." In this connection, as in the case of the Armed Forces, disciplined service is a technical term. We all understand what that means. The police are not subject to industrial conditions. Their hours of work must depend upon the contingencies of their service. Recourse to arbitration in the matter of hours might therefore have serious effects on the service. By reason of the special conditions of the Police Act and the necessity of securing their independence and impartiality in maintaining public order, Parliament, by the Police Act, 1919, set up special machinery, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) alluded, in the shape of the Police Federations and the Police Councils, which comprise representatives of police authorities, chief constables and the Police Federation for dealing with their conditions of service.
The introduction of arbitration, therefore, would entail a substantial modification of the machinery which has operated since 1919. I am not saying that might not be a bad thing or that it ought not to come, but I would point out that arbitration would not necessarily be a one-way traffic. If the police services are to be allowed arbitration, it must also be open to the police authorities and to local authorities and the Government to refer matters in dispute to arbitration. It is not by any means clear that arbitration would be in the interests of the police. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, far from there being widespread discontent on the question of arbitration to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, it is believed that there is far from being a unanimous demand for arbitration in the police service itself.
But, as I say, this does not rule out entirely the question of arbitration, nor has the present Home Secretary suggested that it should. What I have said is that the matter is not one which they are prepared to consider in war-time. The English Police Federation have accordingly been informed that arbitration cannot be conceded to them now, but that it is open to them, if they so desire, after having weighed the advantages and the disadvantages—and there is quite de-

finitely much to be said on both sides—to raise the matter again after the war. After all, we hope that that will not mean a very long delay, but, of course, the present Home Secretary cannot possibly pledge his successor in this matter any more than his predecessor could pledge him. The matter would therefore have to be opened up again after the war and the whole question thoroughly investigated. Now that the conditions of the Auxiliary Police have been assimilated to those of the Regulars, the same consideration must clearly apply to them. They are now all one Force, and it would obviously be impossible to allow arbitration for the Auxiliaries and to refuse it to the Regular Police. In this case, the Auxiliary Police Association have also been informed.
Since the matter was last discussed in the House, the Government have decided to review the pay of the Regular Police and, as the Home Secretary stated in the House on 29th March, a new and improved scale of pay for the Regular Police came into force on 1st April. These new scales of pay for the Regular Police were framed in consultation with the Police Council. They were accepted by all the interests represented on the English Council, including the English Police Federation, and by the great majority of the members of the Scottish Council, and represent a substantial financial benefit. I have no doubt whatever that they would have liked better terms than they obtained. I have never been engaged in an arbitration or a wage negotiation myself when I would not have liked more than I received; but they did not press their claims to the extent of even registering disagreement and, so far as the Auxiliary Police are concerned, the scheme of assimilation has been fully discussed with the Auxiliary Police Association, who are in agreement with it. After all, you have to arbitrate about something. There is no particular point in having arbitration merely for the fun of saying you are going to have it—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so.

Mr. Brown: I cannot stop the right hon. Lady.

Miss Wilkinson: No, there are two of us. So it will be seen, therefore, that the main outstanding issues, pay and assimilation, have been settled through the existing machinery to the satisfaction of the people concerned.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown indicated dissent.

Miss Wilkinson: Well, they have not registered disagreement, and I presume they know their own minds as well as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). As already pointed out, it will be open to the Police Federation to raise the question of arbitration again if they decide on further consideration that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages after the war. However, there has been a still further difficulty, that during the war the Civil Defence Services and the Police Services have marched together and there has been a good deal of discussion with the associations concerned about the difficulties that must inevitably arise. Really, the police have been extraordinarily sensible about the position. We have had to ask them to do a great deal. We have had to ask them to accept their heavy burden as we have had to ask citizens of all classes and all trades and occupations. Things have not been easy for any of us. They have not been easy for the police. During his time at the Home Office the Home Secretary has met the police representatives whenever they

wanted to meet him. The door of the leading civil servants who deal with them has always been open to them, and they have tried to work together to deal with their many difficult problems. All I can say is that as far as we can see, the war is not likely to last very much longer and after that the whole question can be discussed de novo.

Mr. E. Walkden: There is one minute more. May I assure the right hon. Lady that despite the aggressiveness of the advocate of this case, and the sincerity and earnestness of the statement she has delivered to the House, some of us would like an opportunity again to raise this issue at an early date? There is grave dissatisfaction with the structure and the way the machinery works, and we believe there is still a good case for the policemen of Britain. We would like longer time to discuss it with the Home Secretary, and we hope, therefore, that the opportunitiy may not be long delayed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Ten o'Clock.